Largely invisible to most Americans, just to the south, the security situation is worsening as a result of an intense conflict between the Mexican government and domestic drug cartels -- and even among the narco-gangs themselves.
Some observers have characterized the fighting in Mexico as a low-grade civil war. Worse yet, by many estimates, the violence is escalating -- and getting increasingly grisly. For instance, in January, Mexican authorities arrested a man accused of dissolving as many as 300 bodies in bubbling vats of acid for a Tijuana-based drug lord, earning him the nightmarish nickname "El Pozolero," after a local stew. The same week, Mexican prosecutors reported three severed heads found in an ice box. A headless body was also discovered in a canal in Ciudad Juarez, a town known as Mexico's deadliest -- just over the border from El Paso, Texas. Last year, the drug war in Mexico consumed nearly 6,000 lives -- double the number in 2007.
Drug trafficking organizations already control stretches of the Mexican side of the border, which according to some experts could bring the Mexican government to its knees in the coming years. Worse yet, it also has the potential of spilling north across the border -- in an ever bigger way.
One American congressman called it a "life-or-death struggle." Mexican President Felipe Calderon described drug violence as a threat to the Mexican state. Some have said Mexico is perched on the abyss. By all accounts, the federal government, politicians, the military and police are under the gun -- literally and figuratively -- by criminal gangs and drug lords, looking to deter or prevent interference in their shady dealings.
The public is ruthlessly intimidated by kidnappings and violence. Recent press reports have indicated an uptick in citizen vigilante groups to oppose the drug gangs, which could lead to paramilitarism and spiraling levels of bloodshed and instability. But some believe the majority of violence is among rival cartels, especially the four biggest -- Sinaloa, Gulf, Juarez and Tijuana -- in a deadly turf struggle, with the public and the government caught in the middle.
While the seven major cartels are present in most of Mexico's 31 states and one federal district, most of the violence takes place along the Mexican side of the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border. It's no surprise: The Mexican illegal drug business may be worth as much as $25 billion to $40 billion annually, shipping hundreds of tons of methamphetamine, marijuana, cocaine and heroin into the U.S.
Mexican cartels have been around for a while but have become increasingly prominent -- and powerful -- as drug routes north have shifted westward into Mexico, especially since the demise of the Colombian Cali and Medellin cartels in the 1990s. They come well-armed for their fights, bringing automatic weapons, powerful handguns, .50-caliber sniper rifles, grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and even land mines to bear. Like a modern military, they wear night-vision goggles, move by helicopters and transport drugs in submersibles built in Latin American jungles. Their means of communications are impressive, too, incorporating Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP), satellite technology, cell phone text and encrypted messaging, according to the U.S. National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC).
Some of the cartels have "enforcer gangs," known as sicarios, which use extreme violence to protect their interests. In some cases, observers say these gangs are private armies in the cartels' employ, serving as hit squads. (Some, such as the Zetas, are former commandos.)
Adding to the challenge, Mexican gangs (many associated with the cartels) smuggle drugs, firearms and illegal aliens across the U.S.-Mexico border, especially through South Texas and California, according to the U.S. Justice Department.
Calderon, who took office in 2006, is game for a fight, including the deployment of 40,000 army troops, but he's up against rampant corruption that reaches deep into his anti-drug forces. Despite a new program to stamp it out called Operation Clean House, drug-related corruption seems rife among the security services, meaning missing drug seizures and cartel members eluding capture -- even escaping incarceration.
The Mexican judicial system is also a major problem in the fight against the drug scourge. It's plagued by bribery, reluctant judges, lack of investigative resources and overloaded courts.
The police are poorly paid, equipped and trained, leaving them no match for the well-armed narcotraficantes. It's dangerous work, too: Mexico's national police chief was assassinated last year.
Although perhaps overstating the case, some former U.S. government officials with knowledge of the situation have postulated that in as little five years, the cartels could, in essence, be running Mexico. Indeed, U.S. Joint Forces Command's "Joint Operating Environment 2008: Challenges and Implications for the Future Joint Force" recently reported: "In particular, the growing assaults by the drug cartels and their thugs on the Mexican government over the past several years reminds one that an unstable Mexico could represent a homeland security problem of immense proportions."
Unfortunately, we're entangled in Mexico's lurch toward instability. According to the NDIC, Mexican drug traffickers are "the most pervasive organizational threat to the United States. They are active in every region of the country and dominate the illicit drug trade in every area except the Northeast."
Drug use in the U.S. hasn't declined appreciably in recent years, according to experts, despite the federal government spending nearly $15 billion annually on prevention, interdiction and rehabilitation. Even more brazen, Mexican drug gangs are using U.S. public lands in the West to cultivate marijuana. They've also shifted methamphetamine operations from Mexico to California, according to the U.S. Justice Department.
Lots of weapons in Mexico come from this side of the border; indeed, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) asserts a majority of the cartels' weapons come from the U.S., especially via gang networks operating in the Southwest. Mexico City has also expressed concerns to Washington about precursor chemicals coming in from the U.S. that are then used by the cartels in the production of narcotics.
Another problem, according to experts, is that little inspection is done on the 100 million vehicles and trucks entering or leaving Mexico annually at 25 crossing points, leading to plenty of finger-pointing on both sides.
As a result, popular support for Calderon's fight against the cartels has waned; because of the widespread violence, many Mexicans are for throwing in the towel, saying drugs are an American problem. But that clearly wouldn't be good for either of us. If Mexico, a country of 110 million people, becomes even a near narcostate, the effect on the U.S. -- make that the Western Hemisphere -- is almost incalculable.
If the cartels were to seize tracts of Mexican territory, it could lead to the establishment of lawless, ungoverned spaces, which are favored by bad actors such as terrorists. (Think: Pakistan's tribal areas -- home to al-Qaida and the Taliban.) Terrorists could certainly exploit successful drug smuggling routes to bring people and explosives or even weapons of mass destruction across the border into the U.S.
Beyond all this, there's a lot more at stake for American interests in Mexico, the third-most populous country in this hemisphere (after the U.S. and Brazil). Mexico has the world's 13th-largest economy -- with significant American investment. It's our second-largest trading partner. Mexico is our third-largest oil supplier and the world's eighth-largest exporter. It's got lots of natural gas, too.
A number of American officials have said that no country is more important to the U.S. than Mexico. Considering its proximity, that's arguably correct. So what can or should be done?
Most security analysts agree that Mexico must take the lead against this very capable, resourceful foe. Yet it's not likely that Mexico City could successfully go it alone, despite a nearly 30 percent increase in security spending in 2007.
As usual, while Washington concedes the last thing we need is a narcostate in Mexico in the coming decades, not everyone agrees how to move forward with Mexico City.
One way is through programs such as the Mérida Law Enforcement Initiative, a U.S.-assisted, Mexican-Central American-Caribbean counterdrug program, launched last year. The Mérida Initiative, which was barely passed by Congress because of human rights concerns, is considered a new paradigm for joint cooperation between Mexico and the U.S. It recalls the successful "Plan Colombia," initiated in 2000 between Washington and Bogotá which led to the demise of the FARC narco-terrorist group. But it doesn't put U.S. boots on the ground in Mexico.
While the program is a step in the right direction, the plan isn't without critics. Some complain the 30-plus Mérida programs are too long on "software" (e.g., command and control, intelligence collection gear) and too short on "hardware" (planes and helicopters) to meet immediate needs.
Others criticize the plan because it doesn't sufficiently address the problems of poverty, corruption and judicial reform that are critical to confronting the challenge in a comprehensive manner. Time is of the essence.
The situation is increasingly grave with an average of 15 people being killed in narcotics-related violence in Mexico every day. Programs such as Mérida must be funded, indeed, bolstered, if we're to stem a rising tide of trouble across the border.
A few ways that the United States can combat the bloodshed and secure the homeland.
The situation in Mexico and its impact on the United States is finally getting the attention it deserves.
This week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heads down to Mexico City and will be meeting with President Felipe Calderon on Wednesday--the same day that the Senate Homeland Security Committee will be hearing from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the situation there. After her testimony, Napolitano will head down to Mexico for further discussions, as will Attorney General Eric Holder.
And then, on April 16 and 17 President Obama will make the pilgrimage.
This is not just about President Calderon's war with the drug cartels. It's also about trade relations, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and economic issues.
These trips represent welcome attention to America's southern neighbor and concern with a dangerous situation that directly affects the safety and security of the United States homeland.
It's worth contrasting the new attention with the situation last fall when Senior Reporter Anthony Kimery went to the border. At that time, no one in the general US media was covering Mexico in any systematic and sustained way and all eyes were on the economy and the election. Those were important stories, of course, but in the realm of homeland security, Mexico was also critical.
The trips to Mexico will not only be welcome in discussing US-Mexican differences but will also show US support for President Calderon. Hopefully that will have the effect of boosting his position against the cartels, improve Mexican morale and improve bilateral relations.
There are a few measures that the United States--and American citizens--can take to stabilize Mexico, improve the situation and protect US homeland security.
Gunrunning
Mexican experts have been pointing out the extent of the US weapons trade to Mexico, which is serving to arm the narco-cartels that are destabilizing the country. There are different estimates of the volume of the traffic, with one Mexican analyst estimating 2,000 guns going south per day. US officials dispute that and, while not providing a counter-estimate, maintain that it is probably much lower. Nonetheless any guns going south are too many.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Customs and Border Protection directorate of the Department of Homeland Security are both actively interdicting firearms headed toward Mexico.
But this is one of the few areas where individual citizens can make a difference by reporting gun smuggling. There is also one private sector organization in particular that's in a position to make a significant contribution--the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The NRA claims it is a patriotic organization standing up for American values; now it's time to prove it by mobilizing its members to cooperate with US authorities and stop the destabilization of America's neighbor. The NRA is on the alert for any hint of legislation that it feels might impinge on gun ownership--how about being on the alert for any actions that impinge on US homeland security? It's time for the NRA to prove that it's as patriotic as it says it is and make a real contribtion to the country's security by calling on its members to cooperate with US authorities and report any gun sales intended for Mexican narco-terrorists.
The Merida initiative
The administration of President George W. Bush recognized the danger of the Mexican narco-cartels and launched the Merida Initiative, a comprehensive aid package designed to assist the Mexican and other South American governments against the drug trade. Unfortunately, the first chunk of aid, $450 million this year, was trimmed by Congress to $300 million.
Mexico needs more help, not less, and it's in the direct interest of the United States to assist. That cut should be restored either in the original legislation or made up in other appropriations.
NAFTA, trucks and detection
Under NAFTA, Mexican trucks are to be allowed to haul their freight into the United States. Since NAFTA was ratified in 1994 this has been resisted by labor unions, truckers, environmentalists and safety activists, although a small pilot program was established to test the traffic. However, Congress shut down the pilot program and the Mexican government has slapped retaliatory tariffs on an array of American goods--which they are perfectly entitled to do under the terms of the agreement.
No doubt these trade issues will be discussed by the US officials going to Mexico. However, beyond trade, the truck issue has a security dimension and it's not hard to see what it is: No doubt traffickers will be seeking every possible way to smuggle contraband into the United States in those trucks if they're allowed to use US roads.
That the trucks will eventually roll seems very likely--the United States is not about to scrap NAFTA and being proponents of free trade rather than protectionism especially in light of the current economic situation, American officials will have to ultimately implement the agreement in all its aspects.
But the United States still has to inspect the cargo coming through its borders. The only answer to doing this securely is to deploy even more technology at border crossings, particularly new forms of detection and X-rays. It's the only way to meeting US obligations under NAFTA, maintaining the pace of commerce and still securing the homeland.
Presidents Obama and Calderon have much to discuss as do their Cabinet secretaries. But they have to resolve these issues in a cooperative spirit. Both their homelands are at stake.
Two good posts Warph, thanks!
I have a cousin who married a Native American Indian who was involved in a highly-trained Indian tracking anti-drug group in Arizona (I can't remember the name... something Wolf maybe). Their specific duties were to track drug running along the border in that state. She showed us pictures of the mountains of drugs they confiscated over the years! Unfortunately, her husband's involvement in the group didn't come without a price. Many times they had "hits" out on the families of these Indian guys; my cousin had unlisted numbers and very scary guard dogs. Her husband was in an accident about 3 years ago that has left him unable to work and has had many surgeries to repair his multiple broken bones. He was in a car chase and they ran him off the road into a ravine at a very high rate of speed. Not but 1-2 years before then, he had a good friend killed in much the same way. I'm amazed at these guys and the work they do.
It is very scary to understand how much of a huge business this is, and how powerless we are to stop it. I'm reminded of an episode of NUMB3RS (on CBS) a few weeks ago where the smart Epps brother was trying to mathmatically figure out a way to keep the supply/demand low on a certain new drug. I was thinking the opposite... if the market is flooded with drugs, the prices will go down, and it's a much less profitable business to be in. Ha, NO, I'm not for legalizing drugs, but it is an interesting thought on how to decrease the price on the drugs to make them less desireable to produce and sell.
I gotta tell ya, this whole thing really pisses me off. Excuse my language, but with the most powerful, most technologically advanced, best trained military in the world, it seems to me that if the US gov't really wanted to combat the drug issue, it wouldn't be a problem. If they wanted to deal with the cartels bringing that stuff in to this country then they would make the punishment fit the crime. For example, how about manatory death sentence. And why not, cartels as well as the scum that smuggle that crap know full well that they are peddling death. True most that use that stuff know that as well. But I for one am sick and tired of hearing drug addicts complain that they use it to deal with their problems, knowing full well it doesn't solve a thing. Frankly, if you are dumb enough to think that snorting something up your nose, shooting it up your veins, or smoking it will ease your problems, you deserve everything you get, and I have no sympathy for you. However, when pushers target children who don't know any better, there is only one punishment fit to deal out. A short drop and a sudden stop. I see nothing wrong with Border patrol taking these scum that are caught with drugs out into the desert and putting them down, hard and final.
If my rant has offended, or my language seems harsh, I offer no apologies, only the frustration of an American tired of seeing his country flushed down the drain by pantywaisted politicans too afraid to deal with the problem.
I must say that I agree with you Varmit. The drug culture has been the ruination of this country.
I agree with all of you on this issue, but I'm not sure if we can ever stop it. There are very vicious drug cells hidden in the Mexican communities all over this country. They are extremely well organized, have plenty of money and will take out you and your family, especially if someone has family in Mexico. You talk, you die. People disappear never to be seen again. I'm much more afraid of these people than I am of Muslim terrorists. These folks are human Pitbulls ( my apologies to Pitbulls) and can hide in plain sight. Military intervention may become necessary, sooner rather than later.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 26, 2009, 12:01:21 PM
I agree with all of you on this issue, but I'm not sure if we can ever stop it. There are very vicious drug cells hidden in the Mexican communities all over this country. They are extremely well organized, have plenty of money and will take out you and your family, especially if someone has family in Mexico. You talk, you die. People disappear never to be seen again. I'm much more afraid of these people than I am of Muslim terrorists. These folks are human Pitbulls ( my apologies to Pitbulls) and can hide in plain sight. Military intervention may become necessary, sooner rather than later.
Diane, you have just stated another great reason why any and all law abiding citizens should be allowed to keep their guns, and that would certainly include Automatic, semi-Automatic, 20 round clips etc. If we give up our guns we will really be run over by the drug traffikers.
I am not a gun control advocate, but it breaks my heart when the drug dealers in Philly or Wilmington shoot it out and kill innocent people, especially kids, who wouldn't have had guns anyway and were in the wrong place at the wrong time, such as in the back seat of a passing car. It seems like rarely does the right person have a gun at the ready, at the right time and place to shoot the bad guy and make any impression on the bad element. Philly police are being killed at an alarming rate and they are armed all the time. I don't know what the answer is.
Diane, what would the results be if you made it illegal for anyone in that state to own a gun. Do you think that would reduce the Cartel's and/or drug gangs activities???????? I wish one person could give a good reason how taking guns away from law abiding citizens will result in a major reduction of crimes against the innocent.
Diane, these scum are nothing to fear. Yes, they do bad things, yes, they are evil, and yes they should be dealt with. The thing about fear, is what it leads to. As a child I used to be afraid of the dark and the monsters that lurk there, but gradually that began to change. First, I began to grow tired of being afraid of the monsters. Then, I got mad at the monsters for making me afraid. Next, I began to loath the monsters that made me afraid. After that, I began to hate the monsters. Finally, I began to hunt the monsters, to stalk them. I learned that it wasn't the dark that was against me, so I used it to hunt the monsters. Soon, I chased to monsters away.
People need to quit being afraid of the "monsters" and deal with them.
You have a point Varmit but so does Diane. Whoever stands up to them has to be willing to accept the consequences which COULD and probably WOULD include somebody they love being killed or worse in cold-blood as a warning or retaliation. That's just a fact...and it takes a special kind of person to face such a fear and do it anyway.
Quite frankly....the reason such groups have such a foothold is precisely because there aren't very many of those kind of people at all anymore. More people have the guts to die themselves than have the guts to take the chance of somthing happening to their loved ones if they stand up.
We can ALL talk about it...very few of us can DO it.
Frank and all ....honest, I'm NOT for general gun control, I just wish someone could wave a magic wand and make the problem of the innocents go away. I know that's not realistic. I've been riding the ambulance for so many years and have picked up so many shootings. Some were accidental, some were hot blooded anger, many were just plain stupid. Many had drugs or alcohol connections. If they, the hard core bad guys, would just shoot each other, maybe I wouldn't mind so much. But so often they miss! There are areas of most big cities where I wish the police could sweep through and clean out the guns, but it wouldn't last and the existing laws don't support it. The jump squads that scoop up guns on the street do help some, but not enough. I sure don't know the answer. A lot of people have reasonably good idea, but the implementation always seems to hit road blocks. I've done ambulance stand by on hostage situations, and believe me that does things to your blood pressure! You never know how it will turn out. We've had crews shot at....not remotely the same as monsters under the bed. So far I've only carried pepper spray and have threatened, but never had to use it. Back in the 70's when Wilmington was having riots, I considered a carry permit, but things settled down before I actually needed it. In the close quarters of an ambulance, I didn't want to have to worry about someone trying to take the gun it away from me. That would take time from treating the patient. Right now I have the greatest respect for our Boarder Patrol, and I'm so glad those two guys are out of prison now. They were treated very poorly. I hope Pres. O will pardon them.
Just in case you missed it, or I mistook your post....the monsters under the bed thing, was a metaphor, diane. You say that you are not adbocating gun control, but your posts sound differently.
Yes, guns can be dangerous if misused, yes they can kill people, limiting their numbers or types won't solve anything. Just as limiting the type of cars drunk drivers use to kill people won't solve anything.
I really did understand your metaphor. I'm not for gun control because I know it wouldn't work, but I don't understand why some people equate person freedom with the right to own weapons that have such a huge capacity for overkill...machine guns and similar. I don't mean true collectors, they are usually well known in gun clubs and firearms circles. We own guns, I used to shoot at the range,( in fact our police chief taught me to shoot) but the "people killing" is getting worse and worse and it seems there is a whole segment that knows no other way to decide disputes. I just don't understand the mental connection with freedom and guns. The writers of the 2nd amendment might have made it a bit more restrictive if they had known what kind of "arms" would be invented years later. The thinking is just so different now. Wouldn't you be upset if one of your kids took a 45 to school for "show and tell?" W-O-O! And yes, people do over react. I see it often.
QuoteI just don't understand the mental connection with freedom and guns.
The connection for me is having the ability to protect myself and mine instead of waiting for somebody else to come do it for me. I live far enough out that people really DO have trouble finding us, but there is an awful lot of crime for being in a basically rural county. By the time the "authorities" get here it's gonna be WAY too late for em to do anything but stick me in a bag... for real.
it's independance from outside help in a time of need.
Pam, I understand that. I really do. But how would you know if someone planned to do you harm? Black hats? ;D I feel the same way about seat belt laws. There are people who make a connection between their freedom and their"right" to not wear a seat belt.
Lol no I don't think the black hat thing will work :P I'm just sayin I want to have the ability to do somthing if need be. Even havin to GET to it if somthin happens I'll still have a better chance than waitin for somebody else to come save me, least I can take em with me.
I also don't wear a seat-belt....I can't stand to be confined......ask anybody who has ever tried to lol
Quote from: Diane Amberg on March 27, 2009, 11:52:18 AM
I just don't understand the mental connection with freedom and guns. The writers of the 2nd amendment might have made it a bit more restrictive if they had known what kind of "arms" would be invented years later. The thinking is just so different now. Wouldn't you be upset if one of your kids took a 45 to school for "show and tell?" W-O-O! And yes, people do over react. I see it often.
The writers of the 2nd amendment were men like franklin who was a inventor. They did realize that newer and bigger and more powerful weapons would be developed over the years.
They also knew that the government would have such weapons and wanted to make sure that the PEOPLE had a means to remove said government if needed. Freedom is secured by guns and the right to own and use them. Without them the government could not be controlled.
The problems your facing with the shootings would be greatly reduced if they stopped this insane attempt to ban guns or control them so much you can't use them to defend yourself. Take Kennesaw Georgia for example. about 20 years ago they enacted a law that every resident of Kennessaw must own a gun. Overnight the crime dropped to almost nil. All violent crimes ceased to exist. The criminals didn't know who was armed because everyone was required to own a gun. So they left and went elsewhere where they wouldn't get shot.
I'm quite familiar with Kennesaw as I lived in Athens, GA right after I retired from State. Kennesaw is a beautiful city just north of Atlanta and is known as "Gun Town USA." They also have a great Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History. In March 1982 the small town of Kennesaw unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Also written into the law is a pauper and religious exemption clause where if you can't afford a gun or don't believe in it you don't have to comply with the law. Basically it's a law that has never been enforced and empowers people to own a weapon for self defense.
Then Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exclude convicted felons, those who conscientiously object to firearm ownership, and those with a mental or physical disability that would make firearm ownership dangerous. The crime rate fell after this law was passed, and even though the population grew five fold, the crime rate is still lower than the pre-1982 rate. This town has also remained murder free during the past twenty-six years.
The law reduced crime in the city and as a result another city in Morton Grove, Illinois decides to upstart Kennesaw, Ga. They designed a law banning guns in their city and as you might have guessed, crime went way up in Morton Grove.
Taking guns off the streets does not reduce crime. Everywhere concealed carry laws (laws that allow ordinary citizens to carry weapons) have been enacted the crime rate plummeted. Guns in the hands of reasonable people lower crime. Even if the police force is perfect, officers only arrive after the crime has been committed. Having a weapon can deter the criminal and save our lives and the lives of our loved ones.
I'll stick with my blow gun darts and poison. ;D ;D ;D....or maybe I'll talk you to death.
Keep on talking, Diane...I'm listening! ;D ;D
OK, gun discussion is on another thread. This one is about DRUGS.
So, I'm going to stir the pot on this one, too... ;D
How about making drugs legal? If it worked to make guns required in Kennesaw, GA, why not make drugs legal? Then the market would be flooded and the value would go down. There would be no "cartels" because anyone and everyone could bring them into the country and sell them. Just like with the old days of bootleggers... once alcohol became legal, then no one cared about it anymore. Heck, "organic" and "raised in the USA" label requirements would make the Mexican cartels completely obsolete!
People used to think that alcohol and cigs should be illegal because of what they do to a person's body and mind... well, who cares? That is a personal decision now. How about making selling drugs legal and people actually have to go into licensed drug dealers stores that are inspected and clean and light and have other normal people milling about... how's that for dissuading druggies to buy them? Heck, tax the heck out of them, too. That way, it's the druggies who are paying for their own kids' school and welfare checks!
Wow, that was a fun soapbox! Totally unlike me. Now, I'm headed to town for groceries... let's see how many odd looks I get! Ha, ha! ;D :angel:
Tobina, I need to e-mail or call you, someone has gotten your password to the forum and is posting really far out Id 10 T ideas in your name. The ones I have seen I know that you wouldn't come up with ideas like that.
Frank
Oh you're right, Frank. The voice of sanity has compelled me back here again to clarify some things...
Of course if drugs are legal, then it only stands to reason that drug tests will be issued for EVERYTHING. Driver's License, Hunting License, access to health care, running for political office, marriage license, school applications, along with the current practice of testing at work. Heck, drug tests will be as common as eye exams! With the tax money on drugs, I'm sure there will be much research done on at-home drug testing and other instant, quick drug tests. I didn't say using drugs in the workplace or driving a car while high would be legal, just the selling of them... enough to flood the market and make the value (and desire) go down. If drugs are legal, then drug testing could be just as legal... testing kids at school, etc. If you're not taking them, then nothing to worry. If you are, then nothing to worry, but you can't be here or driving this car!
Heck, maybe if people can't drive cars or get licenses if they do drugs, then America can produce enough oil ourselves to run the fewer cars... our environment will be less polluted... there would be less drop-out rates (b/c druggies can't attend school), the workforce would be more productive, our cost of health care would be less (b/c druggies don't get any), etc, etc.
Does that make you feel better, Frank? ;) Maybe I've been drinking the same water PEP does... :P ;D
My Tobina, you have certainly been busy stirring this morning! ;D I can see where you are coming from, spoken by a woman who has lived in a drug environment all her life. However how would it have been to not be exposed to drugs when you were growing up, I am not speaking of alcohol, but recreational drugs. Frank, Wilma, myself and others here on the forum grew up in a drug free environment. I went to high school in Wichita, and in all the great circle of people I knew, only one was rumored to use drugs. He was a lot older than my crowd, but we talked about him and he was a pariah. I guess this is the crux of the matter; acceptance by yourself and your peers. The society as a whole has embraced the drug culture and it will not go away until we send it away, lock stock and barrel. China whipped her opium problem with a severe but successful answer, it may come to that here.
Quote from: frawin on April 03, 2009, 10:09:51 AM
Tobina, I need to e-mail or call you, someone has gotten your password to the forum and is posting really far out Id 10 T ideas in your name. The ones I have seen I know that you wouldn't come up with ideas like that.
Frank
Actually frank, that is the Only 1 of two ways to stop drugs. Make them legal and it kills the profit for the dealer. Drugs are marked up around 2000% or more and thats why they risk all to bring a shipment in.
The ONLY other way to stop them is to execute all drug users and dealers.
Quote from: sixdogsmom on April 03, 2009, 10:44:50 AM
I can see where you are coming from, spoken by a woman who has lived in a drug environment all her life.
Sixdogs; this made me giggle; made it sound like I grew up in a druggie household! Hahaha!
Actually, I grew up in a small enough town that drugs were completely uncommon for me, too. Yes, we had one older man who everyone suspected of doing drugs, but I think he was just crazy. Never once have I been offered drugs of any kind (even through all my college years), or been exposed to anyone on them. But I get what you're saying about "my generation" and how almost immune we are to the seriousness of drugs. And I agree, but probably more-so for the kids a few years younger than me (early to mid 20's), and especially the kids just getting out of high school now. To be honest, the most I've been exposed to drugs and drug problems was moving here to Elk County with all the meth lab issues that are around (closer than we care to admit, sometimes).
I guess my point, again, was for discussion and to raise some hairs and see what people think. I don't actually believe in legalizing drugs... in fact, I kind of like Steve's idea... (wink).
For the sake of discussion; what was China's effort on the opium drug war?
Tobina, I do believe that the Chinese executed the opium users. And when I say exposure to the drug culture, I mean not in your own family or circle of friends, but the entertainment world, news world, fashion world, etc, etc. And I know what you mean about the drug problems here in Elk county. I hear of deals at dawn, and have seen a couple of meth lab busts right here in this town. :P I have watched suspicious transactions at the lake and certain households at odd hours. Too bad. ???
If ''Drugs" become legal, then wouldn't they then fall right in with alcohol and have the same kind of problems with kids, drivers etc. Is that an improvement? Perhaps it is. I just don't know. At least they could be regulated for quality control so nobody gets poisoned by homemade stuff, but then what? We can't keep kids away from it now. Would that get worse? Drug babies and fetal alcohol problems already exist. Yes, we all pay for them. We all want less government but here again, "they" should do some thing about it.
Oh this is fun... now I just need a smiley with devil horns...
Sixdogs; I knew what you meant; just had to giggle at the way you put it! ;D Someone else may have taken offense to your comment, but I laughed out loud!
Diane, in my made-up world, it would be legal to sell and buy drugs (thus decreasing the value of sneaking them into the US or making them). But it would be illegal to take them in most instances (just like alcohol)... at work, while driving, etc. My 2nd post kind of explains all that; there would be severe restrictions on using them and drug testing could be done by anyone (police pull you over... you get a drug test; drug testing in schools; drug testing to receive health care; drug testing at HOME by parents, etc). So it still would be less desireable to take drugs, and in fact, we could allow more legal testing. The idea is not to increase drug use, but to decrease the value of drugs on the street so as to decrease the smuggling and drug cartels. I bet those "utes" on your streets would be less likely to pull a gun and shoot someone if all they had to do was walk into the corner market to buy their drugs. And maybe they'd be less likely to take drugs if they had to do mandatory drug testing to get a driver's license or get their weekly welfare handouts. Not saying that if they USE drugs they get punished... they just don't get the same privileges as everyone else!
You know, Tobina, I have never had a drug test in my life. I have worked for several large corporations and I guess they never felt like it was cost effective. And that is another consideration, the expense of testing that is involved. I really detest the idea of having to prove your worth with a sample of urine or blood. It is just that I have never had my integrity in the workplace questioned and I would have a problem with that. I assume that John Q would have to pay for all those tests in the form of user fees, just to screen out the guilty parties involved. That is penalizing the innocent to catch the guilty IMHO. Lie detector tests is another thing that I really don't approve of, for all the above reasons. :P :P
6Dogs; yes, Pam and I just had this discussion on another thread. I've had to take 1 drug test for a job in my life, but that's been it (and it was mandatory to start work there). (but if my employers get ahold of this thread, they may think differently! Ha!) I would have no qualms in taking a drug test, though, as I have nothing to hide.
Anyway, I think in my 2nd post about this make-believe world, I stated that the taxes from the legal drugs would be used to do research on drug testing and how to make them quick and even at-home kits. Like maybe a "spit on this" litmus test or something. No different than a breathalyzer test if you get stopped by the cops for reckless driving (or suspicious driving). Yes, I agree it would be an inconvenience. But in my make-believe world, these tests would be 2nd nature to everyone and only those people who do drugs (and then participate in activities that are "privileged") would get reprimanded (or shot on the spot... hee, hee). Maybe, in my make-believe world, all cars would be equipped with the same type of breathalyzer test that prevents people from starting their car if they have alcohol on their breath, but this would be for drugs. It's not punishing you, it's PREVENTING people who take drugs from participating in harmful activities. I would take 50 drug tests and blow in a breathalyzer every time I start my car if it meant knowing that it was also preventing someone else from operating a vehicle while drunk or on drugs... and hopefully saving other lives on the road.
There are already take at home drug tests. ??? :police: :) The best I can come up with drugs bad. Booze, pot, tobacco, cocaine, and others include. Decriminalization has not worked in the Netherlands where they are in the process of starting to tighten up their drug laws. I can't advocate China's death penalty for opium\drug usage. The best I can say is I am still searching for the solution to this problem. I certainly don't know the answer, but I don't see legalization working.
David
I'm undecided too. Kids also overdose on legal drugs used stupidly. There is a certain kind of kid who just doesn't get it. I think it's the way their brain is wired. And if they fry their brains.... oh,well. Some parents refuse to go along with random blood tests for sports or anything else. That doesn't help the situation. Between kids who are neglected and kids who are over protected and coddled, it's a wonder there are any nice normal kids out there. Thank goodness there are plenty of them though.
Personally, I think the reasons for the drug problem in this country is the lack of enforcement within our justice system, the panty waisted liberals in office who won't allow serious enforcement, and simple bad parenting. When we contuine to allow a "revolving door" to be placed on our prisons the lowlifes that sell/use/smuggle this garbage into our country know that if they get caught its no big deal. If we start excuting these roaches (no pun intended) it may give them something to think about.
Our government has the capabilities of just about eraticating every source of drug manufacturing on the planet but they let other countries, emasuclated politicans, and panty waisted limp wristed "oh those poor criminals" types dictate to them how to deal with the drug issue.
Young people these days have come to accept drug use as a part of life. Drugs like weed, esctacy, and meth are glamorized in what passes for music, television, movies, and by so called sports "heros" (as if playing a game well makes one a hero but thats another thread). Parents who allow their children to listen/watch this garbage are not doing their children any favors. Yes, children need to be exposed to it and shown the idoicy behind it and taught how to deal with it. I cannot count how many times I've heard parents complain about the type of music their children listen to. But they tend to forget that they are the parents, they are in charge, and if they don't like it then get it out of their house. You tell the child "no, you cannot listen to this" if the child does it again you take the child out behind the wood shed and tan his or her hide.
I agree except for the corporal punishment.
Not trying to start anything so don't take it that way, but why not corpral punishment?
Quote from: Varmit on April 04, 2009, 02:45:35 AM
Personally, I think the reasons for the drug problem in this country is the lack of enforcement within our justice system, the panty waisted liberals in office who won't allow serious enforcement, and simple bad parenting.
Think about it. WHY would they want to do anything about it?? The Feds are spending 250 billion on this war on drugs a year and if they were to succeed and wipe out drugs then they wouldn't have jobs. There is absolutely no incentive for them to do anything. Legalize the drugs, fire the whole lot of them, and take 1/3 of that money that we spend and treat the users and return the rest to the taxpayer would do more to combat drugs than anything they do now.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 04, 2009, 09:43:06 AM
I agree except for the corporal punishment.
That is part of the problem with kids these days. The rod has been spared and they are spoiled rotten.
I raised my kids up the same way my parents raised me. I made the mistake one time of getting into my dads face. When i picked myself up off the floor i held a new respect for him.
My boys all tried me at least once. One of them tried me several times but finally got some sense knocked into him. They will all tell you that They deserved getting knocked down when they did.
Sure hasn't hurt them one bit, they turned into FINE men!
Even if we legalize drugs that won't solve anything. They are too easily manufactured to be correctly taxed.
Quote from: Varmit on April 04, 2009, 12:36:59 PM
Even if we legalize drugs that won't solve anything. They are too easily manufactured to be correctly taxed.
I wasn't even talking about taxing them. Just legalize them. The very act of legalizing them will collapse the industry. The only reason their being sold now is the 1700 -2000% profit margin being made off of them.
Shoot when you pay 125 for a 1/4oz of pot, then someones making a killing! 1 plant will produce 1 -2 pounds of pot. So thats not a bad profit making 8000 dollars a pound which can fit in a 1 gallon baggie.
You legalize it, then that 1 pound of pot becomes about as valuable as a pound of tobacco around 35.00
So who would bother importing it at that low price.
reread your post, missread it the first time (the bit about 1/3 of the money). I see what your saying there. I could see legalizing pot, there are many uses for it other than getting stoned. It's the harder drugs that I have a problem with.
Um, does that mean a meth lab in the local apartment becomes legal? Very dangerous. And about the corporal punishment. I was a teacher for many years. I had lots of ways of effectively disciplining kids without hitting them. I was sorely tested on occasion, but never smacked a kid.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 04, 2009, 03:18:33 PM
Um, does that mean a meth lab in the local apartment becomes legal? Very dangerous. And about the corporal punishment. I was a teacher for many years. I had lots of ways of effectively disciplining kids without hitting them. I was sorely tested on occasion, but never smacked a kid.
Well i can assure you that if you had any of my boys, you would have smacked them at least once.
Nah, wouldn't have happened. Did any of their teachers ever hit them? I doubt it.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 04, 2009, 06:07:28 PM
Nah, wouldn't have happened. Did any of their teachers ever hit them? I doubt it.
Actually their teachers had permission to use the belt or paddle on them for acts of defiance and rebellion.
Diane, I know what you're saying. When we lived in N.C. the school asked permission to use the paddle on one of my boys, I told the principal that under no circumstance were my children to be paddled at school. I am their parent, it is my responsibility to punish my children. Besides that I can do a much better job of it. But I did ask them to call me and let me know if my children got in trouble, I made only 2 trips to the school, one each for my boys. that was all it took.
Quote from: Varmit on April 05, 2009, 01:14:39 PM
Diane, I know what you're saying. When we lived in N.C. the school asked permission to use the paddle on one of my boys, I told the principal that under no circumstance were my children to be paddled at school. I am their parent, it is my responsibility to punish my children. Besides that I can do a much better job of it. But I did ask them to call me and let me know if my children got in trouble, I made only 2 trips to the school, one each for my boys. that was all it took.
Well the way it worked with mine, they got it from the teacher in left in charge to administer it. Then when they got home they got it again from me. They all knew after a couple times that it wasn't worth them acting like a heathen spawn of satan.
All through highschool, my boys were very polite and respectful of adults. They said yes ma'am and no ma'am yes sir and no sir and nevery did they call any elder by their first name. THey always addressed their elders by Mr. so and so and Mrs so and so.
They still do this today even though their grown and responsible adults.
Can't ask for any better than that.
Getting back to the drug issue, I don't see legalizing them as a solution. There enough crap (i.e. booze, legal med.'s etc) for our kids and others to get their hands on without us making it easier for them to get more.
Well... they could legalize pot and make money off of it. What's to stop that. Is it the right thing to do? Lot of people think so. Listened to a radio show today while working and it talked about how less people actually used pot since it was legalized over in some country in Europe...sorry, forgot which one.
So, would I rather the state and feds spent tons of our money trying to control something they have no way of ever controlling? OR would I rather they just legalize it, undercut the growers and dealers, and tax it like cigarettes and alcohol? upside...Can you imagine the money that would bring in?
Downside..Can you imagine a nation full of pot smokers? Even more than we already have? :o
Try and see the big picture here. There is more than just do we legalize pot to make money off of the taxes...or medicinal or for whatever reason..
Then you hear... Marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to other, harder drugs. I disagree..
it has nothing at all to do with the DRUG it has everything to do with the PERSON, just like guns and crime.
I don't know the answer.. but I sure know this..
The "war on (some) drugs" is a bigger failure than prohibition!
Yes, nothing like a bunch of stoned high school kids in class. Alcohol is legal at the age that the Docs feel it won't hurt developing brains, yet young kids still drink too. I don't know what the answer is. I've heard every excuse in the book. There are health issues with anything that is done to excess. Now Bristol Palin is going on "An Abstinence Tour?" Why bother? Talk about a day late and a dollar short. "It's hard," she said. Well Duh! And the delightful young sob didn't stick by her. So who is surprised? Only the toughest of the tough make those things work. I guess those two were average. Sorry, I got off track.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on May 08, 2009, 01:31:44 PM
Now Bristol Palin is going on "An Abstinence Tour?" Why bother? Talk about a day late and a dollar short. "It's hard," she said. Well Duh! And the delightful young sob didn't stick by her. So who is surprised? Only the toughest of the tough make those things work. I guess those two were average. Sorry, I got off track.
Diane give the girl some credit, for cryin out loud >:(
I mean at least she had the backbone to keep her child instead of killing it. And maybe she is getting the point across to the kids she talks to on her Abstinence tour better than an adult would.
Maybe she didn't want the father to stick around, I assume since you don't have the information first hand as to the reason you would postpone making judgements.
I really am sorry it didn't work out for them, but since so many don't I wasn't even remotely surprised. And why would any kids with raging hormones listen to her any more than parents, doctors, ministers and other friends in the same situation who have talked themselves hoarse trying to get kids to listen. She should stay home and take care of her child. Who's paying for this "tour" anyway?
Kids would listen because she is around their age group. She isn't some old fogy who comes across more authoritan than peer. Peer pressure is a big deal for alot of kids, why not use it in a positive way? Palain can use a "look, I am going through this right now" point of view instead of "been there done that" position.
I did say "friends in the same situation." It's all in the moment. Being a male I'm sure you know what I mean. I wonder how much government money will be spent to raise that little one. Hopefully none. And supposedly the boy dumped Bristol because she didn't want his drug selling mother around the baby. Who knows? What do you know about her tour? local, national? I guess maybe it's me that's weird. I always had a lot of respect for my parents wisdom. I knew they had been my age and knew what it was like. Now it seems like everybody knows somebody who has an out of wedlock child. And food stamps and free health care, free lunch and on and on. They seem to know exactly what kind of Govt. assistance they can get even before they name the baby. Not all, certainly, and some do get family help but most grab what they can. Abortion for that? Not on your life! You play you pay. But the girls pay a bigger price.
The way I understand it is that she is very close with her family and they help out. I seriously doubt that any gov't money is being spent on that child. If Bristol dumped him because his mother sold drugs, then more power to Bristol. As for the whole welfare thing, alot of that could be stopped if we quit telling these kids that it is alright to have prematrial sex as long as they use a condom.
Well, apparently they hadn't heard that. Perhaps she wouldn't be a young mother now. At least with condoms there is less chance of disease too. When I was in high school it was well known that the boy's parents paid for the abortion, if there was to be one ,so the boy's future wouldn't be"ruined." We had two girls in my class ...both got married, had the babies and they divorced shortly after. Very sad.
What is sad is the tendency to strip the morals and values that were once taught to our children. What is sad is that we often lay blame on the "boys" for getting girls pregnant, when in fact is those girls would keep their legs closed it wouldn't be an issue. Of course boys share in the blame, it is their hormones that push them to pressure the girls to have sex in the first place. What ever happened to chivarly? Or a womans honor?
Billy, I firmly believe that TV has a lot to do with that. Children are seeing things now that we only heard in whispers. Someone and here again I cannot remember the name was talking about it on a news program. His concern was that while watching TV with his granchildren a commercial about ED came on. The grandchildren started asking questions. His solution is to ban this type of commercials to hours that children aren't usually watching TV. The problem here is that the people that the commercials want to reach have gone to bed, too.
The problem goes way beyond TV. He should have turned the channel before the commercial got going. Our culture has degraded into something akin to a sewer. We have sexualized our children to the point that condoms are being passed out in schools. Thats sick. Look at the clothes that are produced for children. You can't buy clothes that have some class anymore. Honestly, what 5 year old girl needs to wear low rise jeans, halter tops, or shorts that have something printed on the seat? Why is there a swimwear catergory for beauty pagents for children? Honestly, what are we teaching our kids?
I totally agree!
Look at the dress for men. Shorts and some wearing earings. Oh well.............
What's wrong with shorts? But tattoos all over the body are alright? Different strokes for different folks. The bikers around here have earrings too.
Some of my favorite men are heavily tatooed. Basketball players. I was wondering one day why some of them wear a sleeve. I thought they might have an injury that might start bleeding, but Daughter says it is probably something that would be offensive if seen on TV. Think?
That could be. ;)
I have no problem with tattoos, tasteful ones that is. The only time a man should wear an earring is if he served on a naval ship that went down during wartime. It is a navy tradition.
How could he wear an earring if he went down on a ship during wartime? Good gracious, I misread again. He didn't go down, the ship did. There must have been an awful lot of ships go down from the number of men wearing earrings. I have become used to them, but I really do prefer my men without head jewelry and facial hair.
Quote from: Wilma on May 10, 2009, 08:26:03 PM
There must have been an awful lot of ships go down from the number of men wearing earrings.
I seriously doubt that every male that wears an earring was in the navy...I would go so far as to say that most gays, I mean guys, that wear earrings have the courage to serve.