What can be done to stop the violence on the Mexican/Amerian border

[Nintii]

[quote name='bben46' timestamp='1314455647' post='3537401'

]

However, as drugs are a major enabling source of the problems, I will allow suggestions on just exactly how legalizing drugs will stop the cartel wars that are the primary cause of this violence

 

Bben46, Moderator

 

Ok then, proper studies (this is not a rant) have shown both the pro's and cons on both sides of the fence .... and I quote;

 

Deterrence

 

Arguments that prohibition discourages drug use

 

A 2001 Australian study of 18-29 year olds by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research suggests that prohibition deters illicit drug use.[26] 29% of those who had never used cannabis cited the illegality of the substance as their reason for never using the drug, while 19% of those who had ceased use of cannabis cited its illegality as their reason.

 

Gil Kerlikowske, Director of the US ONDCP argues,

 

Controls and prohibitions help to keep prices higher, and higher prices help keep use rates relatively low, since drug use, especially among young people, is known to be sensitive to price. The relationship between pricing and rates of youth substance use is well-established with respect to alcohol and cigarette taxes. There is literature showing that increases in the price of cigarettes triggers declines in use.”[27]

The DEA argues "Legalization has been tried before—and failed miserably. Alaska’s experiment with legalization in the 1970s led to the state’s teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska’s residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990."[28]

 

Drug Free Australia has cited the Netherlands as an example of drug policy failure because it is soft in approach. They argue that the Dutch idea of going soft on cannabis dealers, thereby creating a ‘separation of markets’ from hard drug dealers has failed to stem the initiation to drugs such as heroin, cocaine and amphetamines, saying that, in 1998, the Netherlands had the third highest cannabis and cocaine use in Europe.[1] According to Barry McCaffrey of US Office of Drug Control Policy, Dutch tolerance has allowed the Netherlands to become a criminal epicentre for illicit synthetic drug manufacture, particularly ecstasy, as well as the home for production and worldwide export of strains of cannabis with THC reportedly 10 times higher than normal.[29] Gil Kerlikowske has attested that, where there were once thousands of cannabis cafés there are now only several hundred.[30] Levels of cannabis use, in 2005 only marginally higher than in 1998, while other European countries have accelerated past them, are more likely, Drug Free Australia argues, the result of a growing intolerance of cannabis in the Netherlands rather than a growing tolerance.[1] Drug Free Australia has also argued that British reductions in cannabis use after softer legislation may be moreso the result of heavy UK media exposure of the stronger evidence of links between cannabis and psychosis.[31][32][33][34]

 

Arguments that prohibition does not discourage drug use

 

It has been suggested that drug law reform could reduce the use of hard drugs as it has in countries such as The Netherlands.[35] According to a 2009 annual report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, the Dutch are among the lowest users of marijuana or cannabis in Europe, despite the Netherlands' policy on soft drugs being one of the most liberal in Europe, allowing for the sale of marijuana at "coffee shops", which the Dutch have allowed to operate for decades, and possession of less than 5 grams (0.18 oz).[36]

 

British Crime Survey statistics indicated that the proportion of 16 to 24 year-olds using cannabis decreased from 28% a decade ago to 21%, with its declining popularity accelerating after the decision to downgrade the drug to class C was announced in January 2004. The BCS figures, published in October 2007, showed that the proportion of frequent users in the 16-24 age group (i.e. who were using cannabis more than once a month), fell from 12% to 8% in the past four years.[37]

 

The use of drugs by minors is much more difficult to control with drugs prohibited. To effectively regulate the sellers of drugs so as to ensure that they only sell drugs to adults, drugs must be legalized, and the sellers licensed. With drugs prohibited, sellers are "underground" and therefore nearly impossible to control. Licensed sellers in a community sometimes attempt to increase their income by selling to minors, but when the community suspects such activity, it is a trivial task to discover which of the licensed sellers is breaking the law, and then put them out of business. Underground sellers may adhere to a "code or honor" and not sell to minors, but, when they do sell to minors, it is very difficult to expose. The difficulty results from the somewhat sophisticated culture of underground drug sales and use that has evolved, with one of the most fundamental adaption mechanisms of this culture that the sellers and consumers act such in such a manner so as to make it as difficult as possible for outsiders to discover information about their activities, including, of course, who is selling to whom.

 

End quote.

 

So there you have it, a proper and genuine study with opinions from both sides ... now how to interpret this in the Mexican scenario, and come away with a workable solution is as far as I'm concerned, just a matter of personal

opinion ... which side of the fence do you stand.

Edited August 27, 2011 by Nintii

[Ghogiel]

Drug Free Australia sounds like it has it's own agenda to promote. :thumbsup:

[HeyYou]

I think they all had various agendas to support..... Alaskan's using more drugs when it was legal? Oh, I am stunned. :D Not like there is a lot to do there in the winter.... (unless you are in to winter sports, and don't mind extremely cold temps...)

 

Anyway, It isn't going to be possible to separate the drugs, from the violence, as the drugs are the primary reason for the violence. So, making something illegal, that already IS illegal, isn't much of a solution. I suppose, you could bump the penalties for drug crimes, but, that really hasn't proven effective for other crimes either. If you could conceivably get the death penalty for mere possession...... that would deter some, but, trying to do something like that would never get far in america...... In the end, I think increasing the penalties, would only increase prison populations, and not do much for reducing use.

 

Another thing to try might be closing the border completely..... but, given how intertwined our economy is with Mexico.... (fair number of used-to-be american products are now made their....) That isn't a viable option either.

 

Mexico is NEVER going to authorize the use of US troops, or even law enforcement personnel, on their soil. They get highly annoyed when we toss high-velocity lead in that direction...... they seem to be ok with in coming into the states though..... Well, at least we aren't bordering on Lebanon, or Gaza, so we don't have to try and dodge rockets......

[marharth]

I brought this up before but I will say it again.

 

Does anyone think it would be possible to make a legal deal with Mexico to merge them with the states? Would that even be a good idea if it could be done?

[RZ1029]

I brought this up before but I will say it again.

 

Does anyone think it would be possible to make a legal deal with Mexico to merge them with the states? Would that even be a good idea if it could be done?

Possible? Totally.

 

Good idea? No, no, no and no.

 

We're broke, Mexico ain't doing so hot, either. Approximately half of everyone in Mexico lives below the poverty line, compared to less than one-fifth in the US, and we have trouble enough taking care of our own.

 

If we bring Mexico into the US, we'd either have to split it up into states, which I suspect will not go over well due to their generally strong sense of nationality, or leave it as the whole Mexico, instantly giving it a very large say-so in all going-ons of the US, due to the large amount of representation in the House, which I suspect won't go over well here at home.

 

Also, due to a general 'dislike' expressed by very opinionated 'Southern-Americans', I suspect it won't receive enough support to happen anyways.

 

Plus, if it did happen, what good would that do? You now have a massive area of land ran mostly by drug cartels. Are we going to just go in and lock the place down with military force? There's already a massive outcry against the Iraq war, which actually has had extremely low (comparatively speaking) casualties, I'm sure taking military action in a newly-added state would go over brilliantly well.

 

There's no up-side to it.

[marharth]

I brought this up before but I will say it again.

 

Does anyone think it would be possible to make a legal deal with Mexico to merge them with the states? Would that even be a good idea if it could be done?

Possible? Totally.

 

Good idea? No, no, no and no.

 

We're broke, Mexico ain't doing so hot, either. Approximately half of everyone in Mexico lives below the poverty line, compared to less than one-fifth in the US, and we have trouble enough taking care of our own.

 

If we bring Mexico into the US, we'd either have to split it up into states, which I suspect will not go over well due to their generally strong sense of nationality, or leave it as the whole Mexico, instantly giving it a very large say-so in all going-ons of the US, due to the large amount of representation in the House, which I suspect won't go over well here at home.

 

Also, due to a general 'dislike' expressed by very opinionated 'Southern-Americans', I suspect it won't receive enough support to happen anyways.

 

Plus, if it did happen, what good would that do? You now have a massive area of land ran mostly by drug cartels. Are we going to just go in and lock the place down with military force? There's already a massive outcry against the Iraq war, which actually has had extremely low (comparatively speaking) casualties, I'm sure taking military action in a newly-added state would go over brilliantly well.

 

There's no up-side to it.

Good point.

 

How about just hunting down the drug cartels? Sure Mexico wouldn't like it much, but if we are going to go hunt down terrorists in countries that have nukes without permission, I don't think Mexico will be a problem.

[Aurielius]

"How about just hunting down the drug cartels? Sure Mexico wouldn't like it much, but if we are going to go hunt down terrorists in countries that have nukes without permission, I don't think Mexico will be a problem. "

 

Don't you think taking Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California was enough violation of their sovereignty? Think this time we might just want their consent. I can't believe I'm the on proposing moderation this time..lol

[RZ1029]

"How about just hunting down the drug cartels? Sure Mexico wouldn't like it much, but if we are going to go hunt down terrorists in countries that have nukes without permission, I don't think Mexico will be a problem. "

 

Don't you think taking Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California was enough violation of their sovereignty? Think this time we might just want their consent. I can't believe I'm the on proposing moderation this time..lol

You're getting soft, Aurielius. Load the guns and meet me at the border.

[Aurielius]

"How about just hunting down the drug cartels? Sure Mexico wouldn't like it much, but if we are going to go hunt down terrorists in countries that have nukes without permission, I don't think Mexico will be a problem. "

 

Don't you think taking Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California was enough violation of their sovereignty? Think this time we might just want their consent. I can't believe I'm the on proposing moderation this time..lol

You're getting soft, Aurielius. Load the guns and meet me at the border.

See you on the Rio Grande at dawn, I'll bring the whiskey and a 30/40... you bring the sandwiches...any better?

Edited August 29, 2011 by Aurielius

[HeyYou]

Mexico would never give up their own national identity, and become a part of the US.

 

The US would never want to take on responsibility for sorting the issue currently going on in Mexico. No way we could afford that.

 

Sending troops into mexico to 'deal' with the cartels would ROYALLY piss of the Mexican powers-that-be. I am thinking another Mexican-American war would NOT be a good thing.