Yes or No. U.S. Troops to the Mexican Border?

[Jag_Warrior]

Texas Governor, Rick Perry, has called on President Obama to allow Texas to use as many as 1000 National Guard troops on the Texas/Mexico border. I believe Perry's request is legitimate and timely, considering the escalating violence along the border with Mexico. Obama has said that he is considering the request, but he's not interested in "militarizing the border". IMO, the primary concern should be the safety of American citizens in the border states. Unlike Iraq, here is a case where Americans really are in imminent danger.

So I am strongly in favor of this. The U.S. should continue to fund and assist Mexico in fighting the cartels. But Mexico has to clean up its own house as well: estimates put 1 in 5 Mexican cops on the take, and the drug cartels are recruiting ex-special forces members from the Mexican military to carry out hits and missions. Mexico should also comply with the U.S. request to turn over the serial numbers of the captured weapons from the cartels. Why is this a problem??? Write the numbers down and give them to the BATF and/or FBI. It's not as hard as Mexico is making it. If they have been bought by American "straw buyers" and smuggled into Mexico, those Americans can be prosecuted here. But if they are primarily U.S. made arms which have been legitimately sold to the Mexican military and police forces, and then resold or smuggled into the hands of the cartels, there is another bit of corruption that needs to be cleaned up - nothing we can do about that.

But when I heard a news report tonight that the cartels are bringing pickup trucks across the border and onto U.S. soil, with .50 cal machine guns mounted in the beds, to scare away the U.S. Border Patrol, enough is enough! Obama should clearly understand something: it would be better for the Guard or the U.S. Army to put a stop to this foolishness rather than private American militias. But once these thugs become a problem on this side of the border, things could get real ugly, real fast.


I say, Obama, send the troops!

What say you?

[Tazio]

Texas Governor, Rick Perry, has called on President Obama to allow Texas to use as many as 1000 National Guard troops on the Texas/Mexico border. I believe Perry's request is legitimate and timely, considering the escalating violence along the border with Mexico. Obama has said that he is considering the request, but he's not interested in "militarizing the border". IMO, the primary concern should be the safety of American citizens in the border states. Unlike Iraq, here is a case where Americans really are in imminent danger.

So I am strongly in favor of this. The U.S. should continue to fund and assist Mexico in fighting the cartels. But Mexico has to clean up its own house as well: estimates put 1 in 5 Mexican cops on the take, and the drug cartels are recruiting ex-special forces members from the Mexican military to carry out hits and missions. Mexico should also comply with the U.S. request to turn over the serial numbers of the captured weapons from the cartels. Why is this a problem??? Write the numbers down and give them to the BATF and/or FBI. It's not as hard as Mexico is making it. If they have been bought by American "straw buyers" and smuggled into Mexico, those Americans can be prosecuted here. But if they are primarily U.S. made arms which have been legitimately sold to the Mexican military and police forces, and then resold or smuggled into the hands of the cartels, there is another bit of corruption that needs to be cleaned up - nothing we can do about that.

But when I heard a news report tonight that the cartels are bringing pickup trucks across the border and onto U.S. soil, with .50 cal machine guns mounted in the beds, to scare away the U.S. Border Patrol, enough is enough! Obama should clearly understand something: it would be better for the Guard or the U.S. Army to put a stop to this foolishness rather than private American militias. But once these thugs become a problem on this side of the border, things could get real ugly, real fast.


I say, Obama, send the troops!

What say you?
Living in San Diego, and spending time in cities on the Mexican side. I would say that corrupt cops % is closer to 4 out of 5 Tijuana is a war zone I have no inclination to go there because of that. Tecate is a quaint little mountain town that I would visit and has one of the best bakeries this side of L.A. but I digress. The problem is so complex it is mind boggling. We would already have troupes there with the state of the current economy If so many Bullheaded Americans weren’t brainwashed into worrying they would be a threat if they went Communist, and strengthen ties with those despicable Cubans :confused: Mexican Americans that I know are disgusted that these illegal’s are coming over here and taking jobs away from them!(and have been for many years)Big business tried blaming liberals for the problem while they were recruiting them to increase profit margins. The liberals are in no way blameless. But this shouldn't be a liberal conservative issue. If you have a particularly valuable asset you can get an almost limitless visa and fast tracked into citizenship otherwise a European is looking at about a 7 year proposition. Like most other Latin American county. Mexico’s largest problem is they are simply poor administrators of government. The situation here is a real cluster. I'll be dead after living a long life before this is resolved! As far as I'm concerned this country is overrun by "refugees" from countries that we tried to set up puppet regimes in. As the Old school dies out maybe Americans will be able to tolerate communism in their hemisphere and a lot of problems will go away. I've been a registered Democrat since 1972 I don't vote the party line. And I get particularly disgusted when I see Chaldeans by food with food stamps (debit cards now) and take it to their little neighborhood liquor stores That our government staked them to, and mark it up to sell to poor whites, blacks, and Latinos! The brainwashing from the commercial sector is so effective that nobody of authority really wants to address the tough questions. In closing I think we should just kill everybody and end our misery!
A certain member that is indisposed might suggest that we all just drink the Kool-Aid! Anyway I don't have a problem with the militia or government troops working the border. I mean the constitution of the USA states that its citizens have the right to bear arms (against a tyrannical government) why not amend it to say an impotent one as well!
I'm out of here chief :p :

[SportscarBruce]

Military on the border - of course. It's the primary duty of the armed forces.

OTOH until their judicial and political system is revamped anything over a penny sent to Mexico is a penny wasted.

[Eki]

IMO, the primary concern should be the safety of American citizens in the border states. Unlike Iraq, here is a case where Americans really are in imminent danger.

I don't how serious the danger is, but that makes sense, unlike Iraq.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Eki, every now and then the planets align and you and I agree 100%.

The one great failing of the US gov't is playing footsie with the politically correct in the US on this. The troops should have been on the border a few years back really. The border patrol isn't able to do the job because they either are not given the tools or mandate to really stop this. Look no further than the two border agents tossed in the can for shooting a drug smuggler who shot at them first and then ran away.

[Jag_Warrior]

I understand that we want to have a relatively good relationship with Mexico. But why has every administration from Bush I to Obama bent over backwards not to offend Mexico? I really don't understand this.

I'm not an expert on Mexico by any means. But so much of what I'm reading about the situation there now reminds me of Colombia and Peru in the 80's and 90's. If we can help the Mexican government, then I think we should do what we can... within reason. But at the end of the day, it is Mexico's responsibility to contain the violence of these drug cartels within the borders of Mexico. If they are unable to do that, then the primary responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect American citizens and do what(ever) is necessary to accomplish that. IMO, if that means militarizing the border, then that's what it means. If it means troops and helicopters, then so be it.

But with the violence now spilling over into the U.S., I personally have no problem with troops on the border. These arrogant cartels have never been truly spanked before. If the situation escalates and it goes from having some weekend warrior National Guard troops to needing a detachment from the 82nd Airborne with helicopters (is that currently legal?), I give it two weeks and all of a sudden the border will become quiet and safe. Selling some kilos of coke in the U.S. probably won't seem like such a good idea if you have to face down one of these...

http://www.geocities.com/goose_topgun2k/ah1img1.jpg
From, "F U, gringo!" to
"Is there a problem, officer... sir?"

[SportscarBruce]

49th Armored Division is based in South Texas, I used to be a member. It has tanks, APCs, an air cav squadron, everything.

[SportscarBruce]

Plus, the discussion on legalization is finally on the table. By taking a two-pronged approach that removes the money while squashing their paramilitary forces this state of affairs can be addressed.

[Jag_Warrior]

Plus, the discussion on legalization is finally on the table. By taking a two-pronged approach that removes the money while squashing their paramilitary forces this state of affairs can be addressed.

Legalization? Tell me more.

[SportscarBruce]

Legalization? Tell me more.
Ref; Moonshiners, mafia, prohibition.

[Jag_Warrior]

OK. But I mean, where is legalization on the table? In Mexico? And legalization of what? I'm in the dark on this.

[cdn_grampa]

If you want to call it a War on Drugs - fly at it - what the hell took so long.
Get rid of the self-serving DEA industry - 30 yrs. on ??? - results equal zip and worse.

I live every day with the results of drugs - help support daughter and three grand kids because dipsh!t son-in-law saw fit to shove coke up his nose until such point it killed him. For over a decade now.

Recent gang shootings in and around Vancouver that have proliferated lately may be business as usual in Detroit - but not here in Lotusland,until now. It has been said that these events can largely be attributed to the shortage of drug supplies coming across the borders and the struggle to control what is in short supply. This shortage being a result of the shenanigans going on in Mexico.

Although gunships may serve a purpose,I would prefer something somewhat more targeted and surgical - Delta force / JTF2 / SAS,etc. Nice opportunity for a purpose serving joint operation. Snipers welcome.

Legalizing marijuana,at least in BC,would go a long way in reducing the fundamental financing of the drug trade.

[SportscarBruce]

OK. But I mean, where is legalization on the table? In Mexico? And legalization of what? I'm in the dark on this.

There is a UN meeting this week which will set global drug enforcement policy for the next decade, supposedly a single nation such as the US cannot set policy on this issue independently due to a variety of international agreements. The conversation on legalization has moved out of the fringe circles of both the right and left, and is being advocated by the likes of well respected economist. Marijuana is the only one of the controlled substances I've heard as a candidate for decriminalization, althought if you asked me everything short of the schedule 3 opiate-based narcotics should be decriminalized.

[Jag_Warrior]

Thanks for the info. I hadn't heard anything about that.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Legalization in the US? Of Drugs? Heck...it is in the conversation. Pat Buchanon and a few libertarian types are all for it but I cant see the Law and Order crowd going for it. You Yanks are too anal about drugs...and I say this as someone who despises them but realizes the war against them is not working in any way, shape or form....

[Tazio]

Totally agree :rolleyes: The current policy is turning misguided youth into institutionalized criminals. Prison for profit in California baby!!

J0Dj3d_bdNM

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tazio...it isn't about prison for profit. It is about the notion that this stuff is more harmful to people than it should be as a legal product. I still believe that it is, but we seem to live in a society that is bent on experiementation with stuff that can kill. Pot I can understand, but for anyone to try Heroin, Cocaine or Crack just seems like rolling the dice with your health. Yet people do it. I guess at some point the libertarian in me overrides the part of me that respects law and order and feels some form of legalization may be necessary but I still don't like it.

Of course what I really find stupid is when the state sets up safe injection centers for addicts, who bring in their illegal drugs. There is one in Vancouver BC and I still cant figure out how enabling addicts helps them.

[Tazio]

The disease of drug addiction has to be addressed as a disease

The crime of providing street drugs needs to be addressed as a crime

What is so hard to understand about that!

Some street drugs are more dangerous than others.

Meth is probably the most destuctive street drug ever conceived

Here snort(or smoke) a blend of draino and heavy equipment lubriant

I know a doctor that when he found out his son was using meth, He took it

away and gave him cocaine because it is relativly benign. Then got him into

treatment. It is also true that dope is easier to get in prison than it is on the

street. You don't have to be a criminal to have a drug habit. But if you have

a drug habit you are sick. I can't tell you how many families I know that

suffered tragically because they thought if their offspring wasn't getting in

trouble the little problem would clear itself up. F;;;K the stigma Get help. Give

help. It's not ok to be a wino but to have a glass of wine is socially

acceptable. alcohol is a drug and when it gets a hold of peoples lives they

end up in jails, institutions, or dead! Just like dope.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Here is where you and I are going to disagree Tazio. I refuse to believe that an addiction is a disease. That isn't to say I am not sympathetic and I wont say these people don't need help but here is where I am adament. You take an illicit substance that has a well known record of causing people to become rapidly addicted and then you want my sympathy for becoming addicted? IT is a tad illogical.

Millions of people drink socially and responsbily every day. The percentage of people who drink and become alcholics is a lot less than the people who try cocaine or meth. A LOT LESS. Crack has been known to create that addiction in the first try in some people. Society has never condoned heavy drug use, the dangers of this stuff is out there, yet people continue to think that a) it cant happen to them and b) they can quit at any time. We all know the truth is much harsher.

Addiction is not a disease you contract from a dirty toilet seat, broken condom or someone sneezing on you. We all have different tolerences to addiction to various substances or habits. That I will agree with but when you snort cocaine or meth for the first time, people have to be educated that what they are doing is likely going to cause their health to massively suffer, they will be flirting with the underworld for their habit, the desire for the drug will ruin their life and that there is no need to be throwing your life away. It is NOT however you want to gild the lily a disease. You can have heart disease and die. That is for the most part random or pre-determined to an extent. Cancer....again, you can minimize your chances by behaviour but the healthiest person could get cancer and be dead in 6 months. Drug addicts and alcoholics may have lower tolerances to the substances they take for addiction and are somewhat victims but I think if you think about it, anyone doing cocaine, heroin, meth or some other chemical are just asking to be addicts. They VOLUNTEER for it willingly by going against the norms and laws of society. This isn't a disease in any conventional sense.

Do they deserve our encouragement and sympathy? To an extent if they are honest and trying to get off the stuff, yes, but spare me the fiction they are innocent. They are as complicint in the addiction as a drunk is in his. The only difference is of course is our society tolerates and condones drinking to an extent. That allows alcholics to cross the line without realizing. That line starts at the first try of any illicit drug. We all know the dangers of this poison and yet we have some that choose to ignore it.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

A libertarian I suppose wants all drugs to be legal and you can make your choices....but the realist in me also realizes the second we make the stuff legal, we legitmize stupid behaviour further and then these addicts will want help financially from society to help them kick their habit they knew damned well on some level would kill them. If they didn't, it was because they were not paying attention. It isn't like society isn't trying to educate the youth about the dangers of everything from cigarettes to meth....

I have no more sympathy for a drug user than someone trying to quit smoking. I am empathy for their struggle and feel some level of sympathy, but that is the price you pay for dumb decisions....

[Tazio]

Here is where you and I are going to disagree Tazio. I refuse to believe that an addiction is a disease. That isn't to say I am not sympathetic and I wont say these people don't need help but here is where I am adament. You take an illicit substance that has a well known record of causing people to become rapidly addicted and then you want my sympathy for becoming addicted? IT is a tad illogical.

Millions of people drink socially and responsbily every day. The percentage of people who drink and become alcholics is a lot less than the people who try cocaine or meth. A LOT LESS. Crack has been known to create that addiction in the first try in some people. Society has never condoned heavy drug use, the dangers of this stuff is out there, yet people continue to think that a) it cant happen to them and b) they can quit at any time. We all know the truth is much harsher.

Addiction is not a disease you contract from a dirty toilet seat, broken condom or someone sneezing on you. We all have different tolerences to addiction to various substances or habits. That I will agree with but when you snort cocaine or meth for the first time, people have to be educated that what they are doing is likely going to cause their health to massively suffer, they will be flirting with the underworld for their habit, the desire for the drug will ruin their life and that there is no need to be throwing your life away. It is NOT however you want to gild the lily a disease. You can have heart disease and die. That is for the most part random or pre-determined to an extent. Cancer....again, you can minimize your chances by behaviour but the healthiest person could get cancer and be dead in 6 months. Drug addicts and alcoholics may have lower tolerances to the substances they take for addiction and are somewhat victims but I think if you think about it, anyone doing cocaine, heroin, meth or some other chemical are just asking to be addicts. They VOLUNTEER for it willingly by going against the norms and laws of society. This isn't a disease in any conventional sense.

Do they deserve our encouragement and sympathy? To an extent if they are honest and trying to get off the stuff, yes, but spare me the fiction they are innocent. They are as complicint in the addiction as a drunk is in his. The only difference is of course is our society tolerates and condones drinking to an extent. That allows alcholics to cross the line without realizing. That line starts at the first try of any illicit drug. We all know the dangers of this poison and yet we have some that choose to ignore it.....

You're right! We disagree! Profoundly!

[Tazio]

I never said they wern't stupid. I never said they wern't guilty. I said they were sick!
The question is how much salt do you rub into a self-inflicted wound?

[Easy Drifter]

News Flash:!!!!!!!!!

President Obama has demanded that the UN provide 100,000 troops to secure the US border with Mexico citing that US is too busy everywhere else in the world to look after its own borders.

Most learned political pundits agree that President Obama has mistaken St. Patricks Day for All Fools Day. :eek:

[Mark in Oshawa]

News Flash:!!!!!!!!!

President Obama has demanded that the UN provide 100,000 troops to secure the US border with Mexico citing that US is too busy everywhere else in the world to look after its own borders.

Most learned political pundits agree that President Obama has mistaken St. Patricks Day for All Fools Day. :eek:

yer kidding right? If he invited the UN in...he has indeed lost his freaking mind....

[Mark in Oshawa]

I never said they wern't stupid. I never said they wern't guilty. I said they were sick!
The question is how much salt do you rub into a self-inflicted wound?

They are sick of a self inflicted condition. My point is that is NOT like getting Cancer....it is like volunteering to put yourself through hell for a good time once....and I didn't say we shouldn't help them but we should quit trying to pretend they are innocents in all of this. You do that, you are giving complicit approval that all of this suffering isn't their doing.

[Tazio]

They are sick of a self inflicted condition. My point is that is NOT like getting Cancer....it is like volunteering to put yourself through hell for a good time once....and I didn't say we shouldn't help them but we should quit trying to pretend they are innocents in all of this. You do that, you are giving complicit approval that all of this suffering isn't their doing.I'm sorry if you took that out of what I was saying. My point was be aware of warning signs, and get help as soon as possible because I live in California, and I happen to know through attorneys in my family that they lock people up for things that if they were decriminalized they wouldn’t have to do hard time for. And being inclined to experiment with hard drugs in the first place, they will in fact have nothing better to do in prison, will do it to the extreme, and then it is game over! Or at least a long involved process to come back to good healt both physically, and mentally. This becomes a huge cost to the State, and it's senseless because taxpayers lose on the deal as well. Prison for profit is a real issue out here I’ve talked to people from other parts of the country one person in New York in particular said back there it’s a standing joke that we send “everyone to prison”, as opposed those actually being considered dangerous to society, or even remotely by their standards deserving to receive prison time!
It’s the "Real Deal Don Steel" out here ;)
I doubt that you have anything close to this going on in Canada.
I know where of I speak!

[Roamy]

News Flash:!!!!!!!!!

President Obama has demanded that the UN provide 100,000 troops to secure the US border with Mexico citing that US is too busy everywhere else in the world to look after its own borders.

Most learned political pundits agree that President Obama has mistaken St. Patricks Day for All Fools Day. :eek:

what a crock
send 10 apaches with infrared - game over

[Tazio]

News Flash:!!!!!!!!!

President Obama has demanded that the UN provide 100,000 troops to secure the US border with Mexico citing that US is too busy everywhere else in the world to look after its own borders.

Most learned political pundits agree that President Obama has mistaken St. Patricks Day for All Fools Day. :eek:
:rotflmao:

[Tazio]

Here is where you and I are going to disagree Tazio. I refuse to believe that an addiction is a disease. That isn't to say I am not sympathetic and I wont say these people don't need help but here is where I am adament. You take an illicit substance that has a well known record of causing people to become rapidly addicted and then you want my sympathy for becoming addicted? IT is a tad illogical.

Millions of people drink socially and responsbily every day. The percentage of people who drink and become alcholics is a lot less than the people who try cocaine or meth. A LOT LESS. Crack has been known to create that addiction in the first try in some people. Society has never condoned heavy drug use, the dangers of this stuff is out there, yet people continue to think that a) it cant happen to them and b) they can quit at any time. We all know the truth is much harsher.

Addiction is not a disease you contract from a dirty toilet seat, broken condom or someone sneezing on you. We all have different tolerences to addiction to various substances or habits. That I will agree with but when you snort cocaine or meth for the first time, people have to be educated that what they are doing is likely going to cause their health to massively suffer, they will be flirting with the underworld for their habit, the desire for the drug will ruin their life and that there is no need to be throwing your life away. It is NOT however you want to gild the lily a disease. You can have heart disease and die. That is for the most part random or pre-determined to an extent. Cancer....again, you can minimize your chances by behaviour but the healthiest person could get cancer and be dead in 6 months. Drug addicts and alcoholics may have lower tolerances to the substances they take for addiction and are somewhat victims but I think if you think about it, anyone doing cocaine, heroin, meth or some other chemical are just asking to be addicts. They VOLUNTEER for it willingly by going against the norms and laws of society. This isn't a disease in any conventional sense.

Do they deserve our encouragement and sympathy? To an extent if they are honest and trying to get off the stuff, yes, but spare me the fiction they are innocent. They are as complicint in the addiction as a drunk is in his. The only difference is of course is our society tolerates and condones drinking to an extent. That allows alcholics to cross the line without realizing. That line starts at the first try of any illicit drug. We all know the dangers of this poison and yet we have some that choose to ignore it..........
..I refuse to believe that an addiction is a disease...
And while were at it, where did you get your MD/credential?

Because addiction is a progressive disease

The only explanation except your egotism, righteous rhetoric, self defined authority, and propensity to drone on, and on in an ever narrowing view of life to fit your belief system At some point I have to say of the things you think you know you should be thankful for what I am about to bestow on you No need to thank me for what you can learn. And once admitting you are not an expert in this field one needs to (as I'm keen on doing) merely refer to the Bard:

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


Why we know it is a disease
Many attempts have been made to determine what the cause or causes of addiction are. The attempts to define an “addictive personality” have all failed, although most addicts show some similar personality traits when their disease is active. These similarities do not hold in recovery, however. Nor can one predict, based on personality type alone, who will become addicted and who will not. It also has been widely believed that alcoholism is a learned behavior. A number of very carefully designed studies over the past few decades have shown that heredity plays a major, if not essential, role in the appearance of alcoholism. These studies also show that learning and environment have little effect on the presence of the disease, although they may affect the severity, as discussed below. (Although most studies of addiction have been done on alcohol and alcoholism, we believe that we can safely extrapolate the findings to other types of drug addiction.) Today there are very few medical and research professionals who doubt the importance of heredity in this disease. Our modern understanding of the disease of addiction shows that in order for addiction to appear, one must have a hereditary predisposition for it, and be exposed to mood-altering chemicals for a sufficient period of time. This period of time is shorter if multiple drugs are used, if “crack” cocaine or other rapidly acting drug is used, or if the potential addict is an adolescent. If any of these three things (heredity, exposure, or time) is missing, the disease cannot occur. This means that the use of alcohol or drugs is not sufficient by itself to cause addiction.

It was found that treating depression or seeking out dysfunctional experiences early in the addict’s life did little or nothing to arrest the addiction. In other words, treatment that is based on seeing addiction as a “symptom” is much less effective than treatment that addresses addiction directly as the primary disease that it is.

This disease cuts across all levels of society, as well as all levels of willpower, morality and intelligence. Even though the active addict may show apparent lacks in these areas, the recovering addict is often highly moral and intelligent, and has strong willpower. In this case, the lack of these characteristics during the active phase of the disease is as a result of the disease, and is not the cause of it.

Because addiction is a progressive disease, we can recognize early and late stages of this progression. Denial is a very common symptom of addiction. Denial comes in two forms or stages: “I don’t have a problem!” is the earlier form of denial, and “I guess I have a problem, but I can handle it myself!” is the later, and more difficult, form. Early stage addiction is often characterized by multiple attempts to control the use or to quit entirely, which are met with varying degrees of success. These attempts, when successful, only serve to validate the denial described above. But the addict, once having proven his or her power over the drug, will then return to its use. We must recognize that loss of control is a cardinal symptom of addiction, and that there would be no need for the addict to demonstrate control unless control was being lost. Over a greater time span it will be noticed that the periods of control or abstinence become fewer and shorter, and that the periods of use become longer and more severe. In the late stages of the disease process, the addict is totally unable to quit or cut down, and physical symptoms and signs begin to appear. If the drug of choice is alcohol, tranquilizers, sedatives, or narcotics, there may be severe withdrawal symptoms after only a few hours of abstinence. Hangovers (early stage withdrawal symptoms) no longer occur, because the alcoholic is drinking around the clock. The alcoholic may experience blackouts, which are periods of alcohol-induced amnesia, lasting hours to days. This can be very confusing to a loved one who may confront the behavior of the alcoholic. This confrontation is met with abject denial, because the alcoholic truly does not remember the behavior. The loved one then begins to doubt his or her own sanity.

Just keep professing the ignorance, and I'll nominate you for citizenship to
the Blowhard Society.

I'm going to give you two cents worth of free advice It is always a good Idea every once in a while to remember you have two ears, and one mouth.
Think about it!

[Mark in Oshawa]

.....
And while were at it, where did you get your MD/credential?

Because addiction is a progressive disease

The only explanation except your egotism, righteous rhetoric, self defined authority, and propensity to drone on, and on in an ever narrowing view of life to fit your belief system At some point I have to say of the things you think you know you should be thankful for what I am about to bestow on you No need to thank me for what you can learn. And once admitting you are not an expert in this field one needs to (as I'm keen on doing) merely refer to the Bard:

And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


Why we know it is a disease
Many attempts have been made to determine what the cause or causes of addiction are. The attempts to define an “addictive personality” have all failed, although most addicts show some similar personality traits when their disease is active. These similarities do not hold in recovery, however. Nor can one predict, based on personality type alone, who will become addicted and who will not. It also has been widely believed that alcoholism is a learned behavior. A number of very carefully designed studies over the past few decades have shown that heredity plays a major, if not essential, role in the appearance of alcoholism. These studies also show that learning and environment have little effect on the presence of the disease, although they may affect the severity, as discussed below. (Although most studies of addiction have been done on alcohol and alcoholism, we believe that we can safely extrapolate the findings to other types of drug addiction.) Today there are very few medical and research professionals who doubt the importance of heredity in this disease. Our modern understanding of the disease of addiction shows that in order for addiction to appear, one must have a hereditary predisposition for it, and be exposed to mood-altering chemicals for a sufficient period of time. This period of time is shorter if multiple drugs are used, if “crack” cocaine or other rapidly acting drug is used, or if the potential addict is an adolescent. If any of these three things (heredity, exposure, or time) is missing, the disease cannot occur. This means that the use of alcohol or drugs is not sufficient by itself to cause addiction.

It was found that treating depression or seeking out dysfunctional experiences early in the addict’s life did little or nothing to arrest the addiction. In other words, treatment that is based on seeing addiction as a “symptom” is much less effective than treatment that addresses addiction directly as the primary disease that it is.

This disease cuts across all levels of society, as well as all levels of willpower, morality and intelligence. Even though the active addict may show apparent lacks in these areas, the recovering addict is often highly moral and intelligent, and has strong willpower. In this case, the lack of these characteristics during the active phase of the disease is as a result of the disease, and is not the cause of it.

Because addiction is a progressive disease, we can recognize early and late stages of this progression. Denial is a very common symptom of addiction. Denial comes in two forms or stages: “I don’t have a problem!” is the earlier form of denial, and “I guess I have a problem, but I can handle it myself!” is the later, and more difficult, form. Early stage addiction is often characterized by multiple attempts to control the use or to quit entirely, which are met with varying degrees of success. These attempts, when successful, only serve to validate the denial described above. But the addict, once having proven his or her power over the drug, will then return to its use. We must recognize that loss of control is a cardinal symptom of addiction, and that there would be no need for the addict to demonstrate control unless control was being lost. Over a greater time span it will be noticed that the periods of control or abstinence become fewer and shorter, and that the periods of use become longer and more severe. In the late stages of the disease process, the addict is totally unable to quit or cut down, and physical symptoms and signs begin to appear. If the drug of choice is alcohol, tranquilizers, sedatives, or narcotics, there may be severe withdrawal symptoms after only a few hours of abstinence. Hangovers (early stage withdrawal symptoms) no longer occur, because the alcoholic is drinking around the clock. The alcoholic may experience blackouts, which are periods of alcohol-induced amnesia, lasting hours to days. This can be very confusing to a loved one who may confront the behavior of the alcoholic. This confrontation is met with abject denial, because the alcoholic truly does not remember the behavior. The loved one then begins to doubt his or her own sanity.

Just keep professing the ignorance, and I'll nominate you for citizenship to
the Blowhard Society.

I'm going to give you two cents worth of free advice It is always a good Idea every once in a while to remember you have two ears, and one mouth.
Think about it!

You make it sound like I am unsympathetic and don't care. I do care...but spare me this long explaination of how this is a disease while saying I am long winded. First off, it is my opinion that people who willingly take highly addictive subtances that happen to have horrible health side effects knowingly are NOT to be lumped into the same status with people with Cancer or Heart issues. Sorry...the two are NOT the same.

I have no problem helping addicts, I will buy that addictive habits and traits are inborn and we all react differently but again, I am drawing a line between people who slip into alcoholism and food addiction from people who decide that a hit of meth or crack wont hurt them. Sorry, just about everyone who has been paying attention about illicit drugs off the street knows on some level that this stuff can kill or at least mess up your life. We have to quit treating people who take meth or heroin as total innocents. I will buy that some people have more addictive personalities than others. That isnt' their fault, but why multiply the risk by taking a chemical that has been proven to be addictive to just about anyone who takes it within a few hits.

You chastise me for my opinion, but I don't think you really heard what I was saying.

[Tazio]

You make it sound like I am unsympathetic and don't care. I do care...but spare me this long explaination of how this is a disease while saying I am long winded. First off, it is my opinion that people who willingly take highly addictive subtances that happen to have horrible health side effects knowingly are NOT to be lumped into the same status with people with Cancer or Heart issues. Sorry...the two are NOT the same.

I have no problem helping addicts, I will buy that addictive habits and traits are inborn and we all react differently but again, I am drawing a line between people who slip into alcoholism and food addiction from people who decide that a hit of meth or crack wont hurt them. Sorry, just about everyone who has been paying attention about illicit drugs off the street knows on some level that this stuff can kill or at least mess up your life. We have to quit treating people who take meth or heroin as total innocents. I will buy that some people have more addictive personalities than others. That isnt' their fault, but why multiply the risk by taking a chemical that has been proven to be addictive to just about anyone who takes it within a few hits.

You chastise me for my opinion, but I don't think you really heard what I was saying.Mark that wasn't me, that was my evil twin. That has got to be the rudest, sickest,
most egotistical, self-centered, mean-spirited, ill mannered thing I ever posted on this site........
that I haven't been banned for ;) Please accept my apology
I'll deal with the embarrassment

[muggle not]

The U.S. would have better reason going into Mexico than they did Iraq.

[Tazio]

The U.S. would have better reason going into Mexico than they did Iraq.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"If you can help others, and fail to do so, your time
on earth has been wasted" - Roberto Clemente



Roberto was the most talented baseball player I ever saw play the game! :up:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark that wasn't me, that was my evil twin. That has got to be the rudest, sickest,
most egotistical, self-centered, mean-spirited, ill mannered thing I ever posted on this site........
that I haven't been banned for ;) Please accept my apology
I'll deal with the embarrassment

No worries Taz. You made some good points and I look at addiction in a more empathatic fashion due to some of your points. I wasn't un empathatic before but I do concede that some addicts are truly powerless. Still doesn't excuse going out and doing something like stupid like trying Meth for something to do.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

The U.S. would have better reason going into Mexico than they did Iraq.

You say that...but the second it happens there is a huge groundswell against it. Lets face the reality. There is a faction of America that claims to love the military until they are actually engaged in something that involves what the the military trains for.

That said...the Mexican government is about a step away from being a failed state and that alone would justify some military response on the US border if the issues don't stop.

[Roamy]

The U.S. would have better reason going into Mexico than they did Iraq.

No sh!t think of the money we could make off the drugs

[Tazio]

No worries Taz. You made some good points and I look at addiction in a more empathatic fashion due to some of your points. I wasn't un empathatic before but I do concede that some addicts are truly powerless. Still doesn't excuse going out and doing something like stupid like trying Meth for something to do.....Here we go again ;) There are certain realities, and their are opinnions!

National Population Prevalence Estimate
There are no reliable estimates of the total numbers of Californians using methamphetamines. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (NDSDUH), almost 12 million people in the U.S. age 12 and older (4.9 percent) reported using methamphetamine at least once in their lifetime.

http://www.adp.ca.gov/Meth/facts.shtml

Those are the ones that admitted it. The thing is people do go out and use meth for something to do. This is not an addiction issue as much as it is a social issue. Unlike free-based cocain the user is in a lower middle to upperclass demographic. I'd like to hear your idea of what will resolve this epidemic All I've heard so far is "Just say no" If that is all you have than I guess we should just consider it a culling of the population which is ok because it does not discriminate Rich, poor, mostly white. I think you have probably noticed a level of frustration in my tone. It is partly because unlike Benzo's (Valium, and Xanax) or to a lesser degree, yes lesser degree Opiates (Heroin, Vicodin, and OxyContin) Meth is a relatively easy drug to withdraw from. Much easier than alcohol, this actually exacerbates the problem, because in a relatively short time denial leads to use!
I don't know what the answer is. But I very much do understand the question.
I don't think you and I have a fundamental disagreement here. It is just something that is really beyond the scope of understanding, for most intelligent people. It hits home to millions, 10's of millions when you extrapolate out to extended families and codependents in the U.S. alone. That means in the U.S. most likely everyone knows intimately how ugly this situation is. I don't have any problems in my immediate family, nope I take that back I have a niece that had sex for the first time the first time according to her she used meth, got pregnant has an 11 year old son that is brilliant. She is reasonably successful in a government job. In fact on the verge of having a major breakthrough in the music industry. But her mother, my sister who is a criminal defense attorney who now only handles capitol felonies, at the time this was happening she was representing people with similar situations the only difference is my niece didn't get in trouble with the law. How could my sister miss the signs? Here is the rub. On some level (subconscious most likely) human nature does not want to know or accept it, and to a lesser degree the stigma that goes along with it. What is unfortunate is that the struggle between her and the boy’s father was very devastating especially for the young man as my niece was very well represented legally through the custody battles only because she is connected! So once again in a slightly more civil way I implore everyone to be the kind of family member that pays attention and is able to see beyond the facade of conventional stereotypes of addicts, and addiction!

[Tazio]

That said...the Mexican government is about a step away from being a failed state and that alone would justify some military response on the US border if the issues don't stop.Mexico has been a step away from being a failed State since a few years after they became a Republic!

[muggle not]

Roberto was the most talented baseball player I ever saw play the game! :up:
Roberto was one of the greats and I agree, maybe the best all around baseball player ever.


You say that...but the second it happens there is a huge groundswell against it. Lets face the reality. There is a faction of America that claims to love the military until they are actually engaged in something that involves what the the military trains for.
That said...the Mexican government is about a step away from being a failed state and that alone would justify some military response on the US border if the issues don't stop.
I didn't say that the U.S. should go into Mexico, I said that they have better reason than they did going into Iraq.

[Roamy]

1850

Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 159 years ago?

California became a state.

The State had no electricity.

The State had no money.

Almost everyone spoke Spanish.

There were gunfights in the streets.

So basically, it was just like it is today, except the women had real breasts and the men didn't hold hands.

[donKey jote]

classic fousto :laugh:

[Jag_Warrior]

1850

Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 159 years ago?

California became a state.

The State had no electricity.

The State had no money.

Almost everyone spoke Spanish.

There were gunfights in the streets.

So basically, it was just like it is today, except the women had real breasts and the men didn't hold hands.

Bravo!

:rotflmao:

[Tazio]

1850

Do you know what happened this week back in 1850, 159 years ago?

California became a state.

The State had no electricity.

The State had no money.

Almost everyone spoke Spanish.

There were gunfights in the streets.

So basically, it was just like it is today, except the women had real breasts and the men didn't hold hands.We :) are :p : not ;) worthy!! :s mokin:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Here we go again ;) There are certain realities, and their are opinnions!

National Population Prevalence Estimate
There are no reliable estimates of the total numbers of Californians using methamphetamines. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (NDSDUH), almost 12 million people in the U.S. age 12 and older (4.9 percent) reported using methamphetamine at least once in their lifetime.

http://www.adp.ca.gov/Meth/facts.shtml

Those are the ones that admitted it. The thing is people do go out and use meth for something to do. This is not an addiction issue as much as it is a social issue. Unlike free-based cocain the user is in a lower middle to upperclass demographic. I'd like to hear your idea of what will resolve this epidemic All I've heard so far is "Just say no" If that is all you have than I guess we should just consider it a culling of the population which is ok because it does not discriminate Rich, poor, mostly white. I think you have probably noticed a level of frustration in my tone. It is partly because unlike Benzo's (Valium, and Xanax) or to a lesser degree, yes lesser degree Opiates (Heroin, Vicodin, and OxyContin) Meth is a relatively easy drug to withdraw from. Much easier than alcohol, this actually exacerbates the problem, because in a relatively short time denial leads to use!
I don't know what the answer is. But I very much do understand the question.
I don't think you and I have a fundamental disagreement here. It is just something that is really beyond the scope of understanding, for most intelligent people. It hits home to millions, 10's of millions when you extrapolate out to extended families and codependents in the U.S. alone. That means in the U.S. most likely everyone knows intimately how ugly this situation is. I don't have any problems in my immediate family, nope I take that back I have a niece that had sex for the first time the first time according to her she used meth, got pregnant has an 11 year old son that is brilliant. She is reasonably successful in a government job. In fact on the verge of having a major breakthrough in the music industry. But her mother, my sister who is a criminal defense attorney who now only handles capitol felonies, at the time this was happening she was representing people with similar situations the only difference is my niece didn't get in trouble with the law. How could my sister miss the signs? Here is the rub. On some level (subconscious most likely) human nature does not want to know or accept it, and to a lesser degree the stigma that goes along with it. What is unfortunate is that the struggle between her and the boy’s father was very devastating especially for the young man as my niece was very well represented legally through the custody battles only because she is connected! So once again in a slightly more civil way I implore everyone to be the kind of family member that pays attention and is able to see beyond the facade of conventional stereotypes of addicts, and addiction!

See tho, you admit often it is because they want something to do. You say this "just say no" campaign isn't realisitic. I agree it isn't working but I don't want it said people are not being educated about the dangers of hard drugs either. AS for people addicted to stuff like Oxycontin, Valium and the like, they are in a different category. Heck, Elvis figured all the pills he was taking were valid because the doc gave them to him. They killed him in the end but he was in denial about the dangers of them. Booze is much the same in that it is socially accepted and legal and causes issues. I think in many ways I have a lot more empathy to people hooked on prescription drugs and booze because of the societal acceptance of those substances which complicated things.

My beef has always been with the validiation of using illicit drugs. While you can have some empathy to the addicts of Heroin, Meth or Cocaine, to say they are just victims is wrong. They do it out of "boredom" which to me means either they felt they can defeat the odds against them ( a false premise ), or they just don't care. If they don't care, why should I? At some point people have to be made responsible for their actions. All addicts at some point are fooled into denial that they have a problem and I can grasp that but it isn't societies job to help everyone equally and give everyone victim status. Some of those just gave the proverbial finger to civilized society and it is this drug trade that is corrupting much of society. You buy Meth, Coke, Heroin or Marijuana from an unknown source, you are likely supporting organized crime and smugglers, which are killing what is left of Mexico's credability, and funding the organized crime issues in most North Ameircan cities. I cant just ignore this and while I wont blame the users for all the sins, again, I cant get as soft hearted about their victim status as I would for some dumb schlep that cant shake his need for Oxycontin. The doc's proscribe way too much in the way of pills and they are as bad in many ways as the pusher on the corner.

What is happening with Mexico is drug related and the US in particular should feel some sort of shame/obligation to do something beside sealing off the border. I hear the US Gov't is trying to help the Mexican gov't with aid but I think things have always been too corrupt down there to guarntee the aid will not end up in the wrong hands. The 50 cal guns in the backs of pickups on the Mexican side of the border are evidence that US gun's sold to Mexico dont' always end up in the hands of the Mexican army...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Here we go again ;) There are certain realities, and their are opinnions!

National Population Prevalence Estimate
There are no reliable estimates of the total numbers of Californians using methamphetamines. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings (NDSDUH), almost 12 million people in the U.S. age 12 and older (4.9 percent) reported using methamphetamine at least once in their lifetime.

http://www.adp.ca.gov/Meth/facts.shtml

Those are the ones that admitted it. The thing is people do go out and use meth for something to do. This is not an addiction issue as much as it is a social issue. Unlike free-based cocain the user is in a lower middle to upperclass demographic. I'd like to hear your idea of what will resolve this epidemic All I've heard so far is "Just say no" If that is all you have than I guess we should just consider it a culling of the population which is ok because it does not discriminate Rich, poor, mostly white. I think you have probably noticed a level of frustration in my tone. It is partly because unlike Benzo's (Valium, and Xanax) or to a lesser degree, yes lesser degree Opiates (Heroin, Vicodin, and OxyContin) Meth is a relatively easy drug to withdraw from. Much easier than alcohol, this actually exacerbates the problem, because in a relatively short time denial leads to use!
I don't know what the answer is. But I very much do understand the question.
I don't think you and I have a fundamental disagreement here. It is just something that is really beyond the scope of understanding, for most intelligent people. It hits home to millions, 10's of millions when you extrapolate out to extended families and codependents in the U.S. alone. That means in the U.S. most likely everyone knows intimately how ugly this situation is. I don't have any problems in my immediate family, nope I take that back I have a niece that had sex for the first time the first time according to her she used meth, got pregnant has an 11 year old son that is brilliant. She is reasonably successful in a government job. In fact on the verge of having a major breakthrough in the music industry. But her mother, my sister who is a criminal defense attorney who now only handles capitol felonies, at the time this was happening she was representing people with similar situations the only difference is my niece didn't get in trouble with the law. How could my sister miss the signs? Here is the rub. On some level (subconscious most likely) human nature does not want to know or accept it, and to a lesser degree the stigma that goes along with it. What is unfortunate is that the struggle between her and the boy’s father was very devastating especially for the young man as my niece was very well represented legally through the custody battles only because she is connected! So once again in a slightly more civil way I implore everyone to be the kind of family member that pays attention and is able to see beyond the facade of conventional stereotypes of addicts, and addiction!

See tho, you admit often it is because they want something to do. You say this "just say no" campaign isn't realisitic. I agree it isn't working but I don't want it said people are not being educated about the dangers of hard drugs either. AS for people addicted to stuff like Oxycontin, Valium and the like, they are in a different category. Heck, Elvis figured all the pills he was taking were valid because the doc gave them to him. They killed him in the end but he was in denial about the dangers of them. Booze is much the same in that it is socially accepted and legal and causes issues. I think in many ways I have a lot more empathy to people hooked on prescription drugs and booze because of the societal acceptance of those substances which complicated things.

My beef has always been with the validiation of using illicit drugs. While you can have some empathy to the addicts of Heroin, Meth or Cocaine, to say they are just victims is wrong. They do it out of "boredom" which to me means either they felt they can defeat the odds against them ( a false premise ), or they just don't care. If they don't care, why should I? At some point people have to be made responsible for their actions. All addicts at some point are fooled into denial that they have a problem and I can grasp that but it isn't societies job to help everyone equally and give everyone victim status. Some of those just gave the proverbial finger to civilized society and it is this drug trade that is corrupting much of society. You buy Meth, Coke, Heroin or Marijuana from an unknown source, you are likely supporting organized crime and smugglers, which are killing what is left of Mexico's credability, and funding the organized crime issues in most North Ameircan cities. I cant just ignore this and while I wont blame the users for all the sins, again, I cant get as soft hearted about their victim status as I would for some dumb schlep that cant shake his need for Oxycontin. The doc's proscribe way too much in the way of pills and they are as bad in many ways as the pusher on the corner.

What is happening with Mexico is drug related and the US in particular should feel some sort of shame/obligation to do something beside sealing off the border. I hear the US Gov't is trying to help the Mexican gov't with aid but I think things have always been too corrupt down there to guarntee the aid will not end up in the wrong hands. The 50 cal guns in the backs of pickups on the Mexican side of the border are evidence that US gun's sold to Mexico dont' always end up in the hands of the Mexican army...

[Tazio]

See tho, you admit often it is because they want something to do. You say this "just say no" campaign isn't realisitic. I agree it isn't working but I don't want it said people are not being educated about the dangers of hard drugs either. AS for people addicted to stuff like Oxycontin, Valium and the like, they are in a different category. Heck, Elvis figured all the pills he was taking were valid because the doc gave them to him. They killed him in the end but he was in denial about the dangers of them. Booze is much the same in that it is socially accepted and legal and causes issues. I think in many ways I have a lot more empathy to people hooked on prescription drugs and booze because of the societal acceptance of those substances which complicated things.

My beef has always been with the validiation of using illicit drugs. While you can have some empathy to the addicts of Heroin, Meth or Cocaine, to say they are just victims is wrong. They do it out of "boredom" which to me means either they felt they can defeat the odds against them ( a false premise ), or they just don't care. If they don't care, why should I? At some point people have to be made responsible for their actions. All addicts at some point are fooled into denial that they have a problem and I can grasp that but it isn't societies job to help everyone equally and give everyone victim status. Some of those just gave the proverbial finger to civilized society and it is this drug trade that is corrupting much of society. You buy Meth, Coke, Heroin or Marijuana from an unknown source, you are likely supporting organized crime and smugglers, which are killing what is left of Mexico's credability, and funding the organized crime issues in most North Ameircan cities. I cant just ignore this and while I wont blame the users for all the sins, again, I cant get as soft hearted about their victim status as I would for some dumb schlep that cant shake his need for Oxycontin. The doc's proscribe way too much in the way of pills and they are as bad in many ways as the pusher on the corner.

What is happening with Mexico is drug related and the US in particular should feel some sort of shame/obligation to do something beside sealing off the border. I hear the US Gov't is trying to help the Mexican gov't with aid but I think things have always been too corrupt down there to guarntee the aid will not end up in the wrong hands. The 50 cal guns in the backs of pickups on the Mexican side of the border are evidence that US gun's sold to Mexico dont' always end up in the hands of the Mexican army...Who's asking for sympathy?
I'm reaching out to people who don't want to grasp the concept that if they have family
it might be right under their noses(no pun intended) :)
Wanting something to do, is the "Existential" factor!
If you feel like something you don't want to feel like
Have a cigarrette! a drink! a bong hit!
That is the part of human nature that simply is!

[Tazio]

And FYI Meth was a nationanal epidemic before Mexico was part of the equation.
You need to do a little more research before you make such sweeping generalizations :dozey:
California, and more recently Arizona produce enough to supply the Nazi Blitz,
The Crusades, and the building of the Great Wall of China. Mexico is a new player in this arena!

[Tazio]

Who's asking for sympathy?
I'm reaching out to people who don't want to grasp the concept that if they have family
it might be right under their noses(no pun intended) :)
Wanting something to do, is the "Existential" factor!
If you feel like something you don't want to feel like
Have a cigarrette! a drink! a bong hit!
That is the part of human nature that simply is!

This needs amending!
Wanting something to do, is the "Existential" factor!
It is a rather uncomfotable thing to feel nothingness
that is fundamentally why humans
have a cup of coffee, or tea, a cigarette, a drink
a bong hit, or any other thing that gives them a sense of being
That is the part of human nature that simply is!

[Mark in Oshawa]

And FYI Meth was a nationanal epidemic before Mexico was part of the equation.
You need to do a little more research before you make such sweeping generalizations :dozey:
California, and more recently Arizona produce enough to supply the Nazi Blitz,
The Crusades, and the building of the Great Wall of China. Mexico is a new player in this arena!

I am not saying all the Meth comes from Mexico but coke and marijuana do. God knows what is coming across the Rio Grande. Meth is usually home grown by the same gangs getting their other drugs over the Mexican border. My point still is you are feeding criminal enterprises by buying illicit drugs.

You keep saying we need to reach out to these people because they are trying to escape reality through this stuff. What booze isn't enough? Gambling isn't enough? Listen, I have lost a marriage, a brother, other family members prematurely through cancer, two careers and financial pressures that equal a few. Yet I have not once thought: "I need to escape reality, let me start shooting some heroin to see if that takes the edge off". I am not a martyr but the point I am making is that if you are going to use your problems in life as an excuse than that is really weak also. We all have problems. My problems are hardly unique and are nothing compared to some geniune suffering. The common thread of people using illegal drugs isn't that they have addictive personalities but is that they couldn't have cared less about the legal consequences and the health consequences. So you can care about them all you like, I am telling you that don't ask for my complete sympathy. You will get some empathy but no one told them to start shooting poison into their veins. Everyone makes choices in this life but what many fail to understand is that there is consequences to those choices. WE cannot just wish consequences away. You take away the consequences and you are only deluding the "Victim".

What is happening on the US/Mexico border is the consequences of a large illegal drug trade in North America, the lax enforcement of the control of the border ( not defending the nation's sovreignity )and the attitude that everyone is a victim. BS. Drug use should never be condoned in any way and those who have strayed into it may need our help and support but you should NEVER give them the excuse it isn't their fault. That is enabling...which if you go to AA or any other addiction therapy is something the families are taught NOT to do for addicts.

[race aficionado]

Drug dealing is BIG business.

OK, I am aware that I've stated the obvious.


What I have to emphasize is that it is not only big business for the drug dealers themselves but for the USA's economy.

In a conversation that I once had with Pablo Escobar, yes, THAT Pablo Escobar, he told me that what ever he entered into this county, he would get a 30% of what would eventually be generated cash wise of his product.(And remember that he was one of the richest men in the world) - The rest was "earned" and later washed and incorporated in the economy by those that lived and worked in "the business" here.

Many years ago TIME magazine had in its cover the pictures and names of the main head honchos of the Colombian cartel. I thought that was great.

What I wished is that in the next magazine cover they would then expose the names and pictures of the USA "cartel" members where certain head honchos of our main USA banks would be exposed.


It never happened. :dozey:

The war on drugs is a big crock. :vader:

peace
:s mokin:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Race...that it may be. There are a lot of guilty people with American passports making money off of this drug trade who are unlikely on the list of people many would suspect.

It still doesn't change my feeling that personal responsibility isn't being taught by parents, by society or by the media and if people were told flat out over and over again that it is THEY who will be the losers for taking illegal drugs, and not glamourizing it or condoning it in any fashion, it would help.

Just say no is simplistic. It has to be a full out assault on the senses and not just be a simple message of no. Anti-smoking campaigns prove that with a lot of effort, you can reduce usage of a LEGAL product that is harmful to one's health, tobacco. I didn't say it would work 100% but I think there is a mixed message when it comes to drug use. Tazio and others like him want to tell us that any addict is a victim of a disease. Just like smoking is a disease? Really?

No..

You are right tho Race, too many people are making money off of this in ways most may not realize. That still doesn't change the fact that the government's job isnt' to go along with this but to fight to stop it as best as they can. One of the first ways is to tighten up the US/Mexico border. They have started.....but it hasn't been enough.

[Tazio]

Mark since you have such a passion about drugs passing over the U.S. Border I think this is a problem that you should concern yourself with.
Those of us that live in border cities with Mexico will handle this end ;)

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black

'BC Bud'

Inspector Brian Cantera of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in Vancouver believes that John's small grow-op is one of 20,000 to be found in residential houses around the province.

That figure excludes the larger grow-ops in industrial locations, not to mention the huge dope farms that are scattered around British Columbia's vast interior.

If Inspector Cantera's estimates are accurate, then British Columbia is probably home to the largest concentration of organised criminal syndicates in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7519178.stm

When you get this resolved could you get back to me? Ba Bye!! :down:

[Mark in Oshawa]

Mark since you have such a passion about drugs passing over the U.S. Border I think this is a problem that you should concern yourself with.
Those of us that live in border cities with Mexico will handle this end ;)

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black

'BC Bud'

Inspector Brian Cantera of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in Vancouver believes that John's small grow-op is one of 20,000 to be found in residential houses around the province.

That figure excludes the larger grow-ops in industrial locations, not to mention the huge dope farms that are scattered around British Columbia's vast interior.

If Inspector Cantera's estimates are accurate, then British Columbia is probably home to the largest concentration of organised criminal syndicates in the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7519178.stm


When you get this resolved could you get back to me? Ba Bye!! :down:

Guilty on that one. I am ticked the RCMP cant get a handle on the potheads and their damn growops. Here we go tho with a society condoning soft drug use and everyone who has issues with it being "Victims". Like you, the prevailing thought up here on drug use is there is no point in fighting it.

AT some point, legalization will rear its ugly head but I don't see it happening in Canada if the conversation isnt being had in the US. We have issues with it too. The difference is our nation isn't a failing state and unlike Mexico, the RCMP and US authorities can work together on this without there being a loss of face or sovereignty. The Mexicans near as I can tell cant control anything that is happening up there and the drug cartels are running the territory near the border from some of what I have read.

Kudo's for kicking me on the potheads in BC. Proves you do your research a little.....

Still doesn't change tho my contention that the first step to fighting drug use is to change the public perception that it is inevitable. It is NOT.

[Easy Drifter]

We are sure not innocent in Ontario either. A big MJ bust in Barrie in an industrial mall unit yesterday. A false floor was built and a major grow op on the concealed 2nd floor.
But nothing beats the bigest Barrie bust when a huge grow op was discovered in the former Molson Breweries plant just yards from highway 400.
Today Barrie is fighting an Ethanol plant proposed for the building. I guess grass is preferable!! :D

[Mark in Oshawa]

Drifter, that grow op in the old Molson building was a perfect example of how our society condones this sort of crap. How many people laughed about that? That was a major criminal enterprise and the people involved probably didn't get much more than a slap on the wrist from our lax criminal justice system. People thought it was a bit of a joke on how these guys managed to turn that building into a 150000 square foot grow op. THAT is the sort of crap that a society has to punish harshly. Drugs for the most part are very bad for society. MJ is seen as an equal to alcohol and I agree it probably should be legal, but until it is, and until the US looks at it that way, we have to put a stop to any efforts to make it in large quantities for export. Harder drugs were not being made there but if they were, maybe people would have taken this all a bit more seriously.

Anyhow...this is a topic I suppose for another thread....

[Tazio]

I guess grass is preferable!! :D
Actually I find a "Cannon Ball" is better yet :up:
A big hit of some BC Bud, chased with a large gulp of Etenol :p :
Just keep in mind you don't light the latter ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

BC Bud...damn lotusland has a lot to answer for....

[Tazio]

Guilty on that one. I am ticked the RCMP cant get a handle on the potheads and their damn growops. Here we go tho with a society condoning soft drug use and everyone who has issues with it being "Victims". Like you, the prevailing thought up here on drug use is there is no point in fighting it.

AT some point, legalization will rear its ugly head but I don't see it happening in Canada if the conversation isnt being had in the US. We have issues with it too. Kudo's for kicking me on the potheads in BC. Proves you do your research a little.....

Still doesn't change tho my contention that the first step to fighting drug use is to change the public perception that it is inevitable. It is NOT.

I also question this contention:
The difference is our nation isn't a failing state and unlike Mexico, the RCMP and US authorities can work together on this without there being a loss of face or sovereignty. The Mexicans near as I can tell cant control anything that is happening up there and the drug cartels are running the territory near the border from some of what I have read.The concept of a “failed state” does not have a strong academic foundation. It has become popular, however, largely because of the yearly index that Foreign Policy magazine publishes, based on work done by the Fund for Peace. There are two good books written by Robert I. Rotberg, a Harvard professor, which discuss the concept mostly in the context of a series of African nations. Mexico has never been one of the sixty states that the Foreign Policy index tracks and bears little resemblance to those in the list. Nonetheless, the debate has taken hold of the media

I guess that depends on who you read or listen to!
A Harvard Professor opinion pales in comparison to Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly :p :

Given this definition, any reasonable observer of the Mexican reality would have to conclude that, despite its shortcomings, the Mexican government cannot be categorized as a failing state. In spite of the many problems of public safety, law enforcement and economic performance, the government operates in a rather normal fashion, where public services work and it remains in charge. Hence, nobody would be surprised if government officials and opinion makers were to condemn the very notion that the Mexican government could fail. The problem is that, in typical Mexican fashion, the discussion in Mexico has been defensive and not about the arguments being made.

This column is based on an excerpt of a policy paper that was published by the University of Miami’s Center for Hemispheric Policy in its Perspectives on the Americas series. Republished with permission of the center.

[Tazio]

You may want to check the top 60 countries in peril of failing on the list of this publication ;)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=25

Founded in 1970 by Samuel Huntington and Warren Demian Manshel, and now published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC, in Washington, D.C., FOREIGN POLICY is the premier, award-winning magazine of global politics, economics, and ideas. Our mission is to explain how the world works—in particular, how the process of globalization is reshaping nations, institutions, cultures, and, more fundamentally, our daily lives.

“Always authoritative but never heavy-handed, Foreign Policy delivers on its mission
to take readers beyond the facts to understand how the world works”

—2007 National Magazine Awards


Equal parts scout and translator, we draw on the world’s leading journalists, thinkers, and professionals to analyze the most significant international trends and events of our times, without regard to ideology or political bias. Whether examining who the winners are in Iraq, determining solutions to save the world, or discovering the states that fail us, we strive to combine original thinking with real-world illustrations of ideas in action.

Your list of the top 60
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/fs2008/failed_states_ranking.jpg

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tazio, excellent stuff. That said, Mexico may not be in that 60, but I can tell you that if the drug cartels and violence along their side of border continues, it may not be long until they do make it.

[Tazio]

Tazio, excellent stuff. That said, Mexico may not be in that 60, but I can tell you that if the drug cartels and violence along their side of border continues, it may not be long until they do make it.On that I do agree!! Absolutely (make the list that is) I believe the recent claims (of failure) are yet another overreaction by the media in this country. My contention is that The Sovereign Republic known to its wonderfully diverse citizens as "Estados Unidos Mexicanos” have not, nor will fail as such.
By the Almighty ;)

[Mark in Oshawa]

On that I do agree!! Absolutely (make the list that is) I believe the recent claims (of failure) are yet another overreaction by the media in this country. My contention is that The Sovereign Republic known to its wonderfully diverse citizens as "Estados Unidos Mexicanos” have not, nor will fail as such.
By the Almighty ;)

Well...Mexico could be SO much more than it is.....but corruption has pretty much stalled that country...

[Jag_Warrior]

And this tidbit of (pretzel) logic from our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton:

"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."

The only problem I have with what Clinton said is, you will not here anyone from within the Mexican government say: "Our insatiable demand for illegal guns to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians. Our inability to prevent money and drugs from being illegally smuggled across the border fuels the drug trade."

I have no problem with Clinton's concept of co-responsibility. But "co" always requires a dance partner.

[Tazio]

And this tidbit of (pretzel) logic from our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton:

"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."

The only problem I have with what Clinton said is, you will not here anyone from within the Mexican government say: "Our insatiable demand for illegal guns to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians.

I suggest you havn't paid attention to what the Mexican Goverrnment has been stating!
The Central Government of Mexico arming Cartelels?
I find your contention absurd!
They are on record as saying that the cartels that have proposed to some government officials "take silver or take lead"
is at the center of the problem A problem they strongly condemn, yet acknowledge!

In 2006, Mexican President Felipe Calderon launched the Mexican war on drugs. Calderon persists in the effort and claims much of the drug-related violence has occurred as a result of government success against drug cartels.

There is some truth in that, as the cartels have intensified their fight over endangered turf. Calderon deserves praise for his determination and courage; however, the drug war deserves reconsideration, especially in the face of an economic crisis that has weakened the hand of government.

Recently on Meet the Press, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates praised Calderon for having "taken on the battle against these cartels." Gates advocated support for Mexico by "providing them with, with training, with, with resources, with reconnaissance and surveillance kinds of capabilities; but just cooperation, including in intelligence." Gates stressed the seriousness of the problem.

A serious problem requires serious action, discussion and criticism, not a narrow militaristic focus on a war with drug cartels. Doing what has always been done will not produce better results. The War on Drugs in the U.S. and Mexico is flawed. Weapons and battle will not bring peace.

Governments should revise policies that are not working. Governments must consider alternatives. Peace can begin with the cessation of war.

Mexican drug cartels largely profit from money spent by U.S. consumers. The illegal drug trade is worth between 12 and 15 billions dollars a year. Crime. Pays. Well.

The cartels largely arm themselves with weapons purchased in the U.S. Cartel units have repeatedly overwhelmed local police forces. On several ocasions, cartel units have resisted the Mexican military. Indeed, the cartels openly recruit former and current members of the Mexican army. The cartels pay more.

Are you suggesting that the legitimate government of Mexico is for arming cartels while 10,000 of their citizens are killed. I have to disagree!

http://www.banderasnews.com/0903/edop-aquestionofsupport.htm

In December of 2006, Mexico's new President Felipe Calderón declared war on the drug cartels, reversing earlier government passiveness. Since then, the government has made some gains, but at a heavy price - gun battles, assasinations, kidnappings, fights between rival cartels, and reprisals have resulted in over 9,500 deaths since December 2006 - over 5,300 killed last year alone. President Barack Obama recently announced extra agents were being deployed to the border and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton heads to Mexico today to pursue a broad diplomatic agenda - overshadowed now by spiraling drug violence and fears of greater cross-border spillover. Officials on both sides of the border are committed to stopping the violence, and stemming the flow of drugs heading north and guns and cash heading south. (34 photos total)
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/03/mexicos_drug_war.html

It's a freakin' bloodbath. That part I agree with! An effort is being made to fight the cartels You may not be getting the results as quickly as you would like. Please The Idea that the government of Mexico has an insaitiable lust for more guns to assists the cartels is not bueno!

[Jag_Warrior]

Tazio, you completely misread or misunderstood what I posted.

My point is that one cannot form effective corrective actions if one only chooses to look at or speak about one side of the issue.

It's not unusual for Mexico to speak about shortcoming and contributions from the northern side of the border. Odd that Clinton and Holder haven't been saying much about shortcomings and contributions from the southern side of the border. That is my point.

[Tazio]

Tazio, you completely misread or misunderstood what I posted.

My point is that one cannot form effective corrective actions if one only chooses to look at or speak about one side of the issue.

It's not unusual for Mexico to speak about shortcoming and contributions from the northern side of the border. Odd that Clinton and Holder haven't been saying much about shortcomings and contributions from the southern side of the border. That is my point.
I realized after I was done with my rant that I was not really addressing your suggestion!
Sorry about that.
As far as your point about whoever says there isn't much talk about the shortcomings from south of the border;
I hate to seem glib, But it kind of goes without saying, and I don't have an answer for that.
I said this at the beginning of this thread. Mexico, like almost every other Latin American country are poor administrators of government.
There is no easy fix for Mexico. They have a long hard fight ahead. There is plenty of blame to go around!

[Roamy]

Unfortunately both of the countries involved are soooooooooo corrupt this is only chewing gum for the media!!

[Tazio]

Unfortunately both of the countries involved are soooooooooo corrupt this is only chewing gum for the media!!

Pretty much it in a nutshell!

[Jag_Warrior]

Each one of the weapons shown below has a serial number on it (unless it's been filed or ground off). Each one of the weapons has a brand and/or a place of manufacture.

Not to "place blame" but for the purposes of data collection, which is the most basic and fundamental step in problem solving, it would be rather helpful if the Mexican authorities would give this data to the United States government. This, rather than just continuing to whine that "90% of the weapons used by the drug cartels come from the U.S." Yeah, well... probably 90%+ of the machine guns and select fire weapons, grenade launchers and other weapons used by the Mexican Army and police forces come from the U.S. too. Coincidence? I dunno. So far, the Mexicans continue to sit on the evidence. Just as they complained whenever discussions about enhanced border security on the U.S. side was brought up as an issue over the past few years. If they really want our help (and not just handouts), then I suggest they give us the information necessary to undertake effective corrective actions on this side of the border.


http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04pZcWBfun9ax/610x.jpg


Men arrested by Mexican federal police stand behind weapons found in a home in Mexico City, Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2008. Eleven alleged hit men working for the Sinaloa drug cartel were captured at two Mexico City mansions stocked with grenades, automatic weapons and body armor.

Grenades and automatic weapons?!!! Let's get real, those didn't come from a gunshow or a Mom & Pop gun shop in the U.S.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Tazio, you completely misread or misunderstood what I posted.

My point is that one cannot form effective corrective actions if one only chooses to look at or speak about one side of the issue.

It's not unusual for Mexico to speak about shortcoming and contributions from the northern side of the border. Odd that Clinton and Holder haven't been saying much about shortcomings and contributions from the southern side of the border. That is my point.

Clinton wont. This administration wont blame the Mexicans for things they do wrong. It is all about taking the blame on because that is what the libreals seem to be bent on.

Until the Mexican Gov't finds a way to get a handle on its corruption issues, this stuff will continue. The USA isn't blameless in that it has its citizens buying the drugs and corruption on the border aiding some of this, but if Mexico's gov't wasn't losing control of the border area, most of the crime would be controllable....

[F1boat]

IMO securing the border is normal, it is OK. But attacking Mexico will be bad.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't think attacking Mexico is the point. I do think tho when Mexican drug gangs are killing thousands in the border states of Mexico every year, and some of those killings are spilling over into US cities like El Paso, San Diego and Phoenix, then the US gov't is going to get cranky and maybe start really putting an armed presence on the border.

Obama wouldn't invade Mexico because politically it would be suicide for him to do so.....

[Jag_Warrior]

No one is suggesting that the U.S. attack Mexico. The problem that I and a lot of other Americans see is that our citizens are now under threat of attack from Mexico.... not the Mexican government, but Mexican drug cartels that the Mexican government cannot control.

Bush and the neocons spent the past 8 years so obsessessed with the Middle East that nothing else in the world mattered. And now Obama's administration seems set to play a game of "pitty-pat" in dealing with this border issue.

Obama took a baby step this past week, in authorizing a few more agents on the border. But if the increasing trend of kidnappings that began a year or so ago doesn't abate, I believe we'll begin hearing about private militias again, just as we did when Clinton/Reno were in office.



By Lizbeth Diaz
TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) - American businesswoman Veronica was stepping out of her car in California when two men forced her into the passenger seat at gunpoint, pushed her teenage daughter into the back and drove them into Mexico.

Taking advantage of lax Mexican security at the San Diego border, and with U.S. authorities focused mainly on those entering the United States, the kidnappers took the two women to Tijuana in January and held them for a month before their family paid a $100,000 ransom.

"We got an automatic green light to go through Mexican customs and then we were blindfolded and taken to a house in Tijuana. They held a pistol to my stomach all the time we were in the car," said Veronica, who declined to give her surname.

An unintended consequence of Mexican efforts to weaken drug gangs, drug traffickers around Tijuana are turning to abducting U.S. citizens and residents in southern California and holding them in Mexico as a new way to get funds, U.S. and Mexican authorities say.

Mexican intelligence officials say Veronica is one of around 30 Americans abducted in southern California and taken to Tijuana since last November. Many of the victims are of Hispanic origin and hold double nationality.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1250256620080812

[Tazio]

An unintended consequence of Mexican efforts to weaken drug gangs, drug traffickers around Tijuana are turning to abducting U.S. citizens and residents in southern California and holding them in Mexico as a new way to get funds, U.S. and Mexican authorities say
Damned if you do, and Damned if you don't :p :
Being a San Diegan it's always been easy to get into Mexico, and whatever risks that incurs!
As a general rule it takes 2-3 hours for commuters to cross into San Diego during weekday morning hours,
at the International Border. Once we let them on our side it's our problem.
Stopping Mexicans returning to Mexico by Mexican authorities is an unrealistic proposition!
Addressing the culture of crime by Mexican Nationals is the task at hand for Mexico
BTW the kidnappings may be up, but it is not a new phenomenon.
It’s been happening ever since I can remember!

I'm all for troops at the border! If they can survive the boredom!

[Jag_Warrior]

Stopping Mexicans returning to Mexico by Mexican authorities is an unrealistic proposition!

Why is that?

Here again, if the guns, cash... and kidnap victims are what's being "imported" into Mexico, as the drugs and human traffic are being "exported", why is it unrealistic for the Mexican government to exert greater control over the border?

[Tazio]

It's a numbers deal and an economic reality. Mexican tourism will evaporate if they make Americans (and tourists of any other nationality, a lot of who come to S.D with the idea including Mexico on the itinerary) wait 3 hours to cross into Mexico
You will also here American businesses scream bloody murder for making their legal documented employees spend 4 to 6 hours a day in their car at the border BTW many American Nationals live in TJ as well as vacation property owners. If that happened then the border cities would become ghost towns. One way of eliminating the problem, which would be devastating to the California economy, because legal Mexican Nationals spend a lot of money in Sunny Southern Ca.? Ever been to Mexico via the I-5 border?
It's not an impossible task Just an extremely difficult one, and I should have framed my statement a little better. This will take cooperation between The U.S. and Mexico on a level that overreaches the gravity of the problem. I don't think we need another Israel/Palestine border solution yet!
BTW the guns are not passing through the International Border Crossings! The Cartels are way too smart for that!

[Tazio]

FYI----- The Lure of Mexico! :rolleyes:
It is now estimated that between 600, and 800,000 Americans live in Baja!
Why not a more accurate count?
Mexico is a place you can lose yourself. A lot of Americans find that aspect very apealling!





LA MISION, Mexico -- Every weekend, Carmen Tetelboin joins the Baja boom.

After work on Fridays, the Los Angeles resident drives four hours across the border to Baja California, where life is so good and living so cheap, it beats the other California, she contends.

Owning a condo on the coast, she and her husband are part of an American colony exploding during the past five years along 75 miles of pristine beaches, cliffs and towns south of Tijuana. What's drawing them are oceanfront homes at a fraction of the multimillion-dollar prices on the U.S. side.

A native of Chile who is bilingual and a U.S. citizen, Tetelboin jokingly calls this swath of Americans "gringolandia."

"I never speak more English than when I'm in Mexico," said Tetelboin, 51, an adviser to international students at UCLA.

"We complain about Mexicans illegally crossing the border for a $6-an-hour job ... in an attempt to take back the country, when in fact we're buying Mexico one lot at a time," said Patrick Osio, 68, of Chula Vista, Calif., a former consultant who leads conferences on Baja real estate.

Indeed, the high-rises and gated communities dotting the coast exude a United States ambience, advertising in big English signs--"Beachfront condos. Models open here"--with San Diego or U.S. toll-free phone numbers. Even traffic signs on the coastal toll road are in English."

[markabilly]

Each one of the weapons shown below has a serial number on it (unless it's been filed or ground off). Each one of the weapons has a brand and/or a place of manufacture.

Not to "place blame" but for the purposes of data collection, which is the most basic and fundamental step in problem solving, it would be rather helpful if the Mexican authorities would give this data to the United States government. This, rather than just continuing to whine that "90% of the weapons used by the drug cartels come from the U.S." Yeah, well... probably 90%+ of the machine guns and select fire weapons, grenade launchers and other weapons used by the Mexican Army and police forces come from the U.S. too. Coincidence? I dunno. So far, the Mexicans continue to sit on the evidence. Just as they complained whenever discussions about enhanced border security on the U.S. side was brought up as an issue over the past few years. If they really want our help (and not just handouts), then I suggest they give us the information necessary to undertake effective corrective actions on this side of the border.


http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04pZcWBfun9ax/610x.jpg


Grenades and automatic weapons?!!! Let's get real, those didn't come from a gunshow or a Mom & Pop gun shop in the U.S.


No, they got them from all those folks who "lose" their weapon down at the local pawn shop or some other "transaction" while serving in the military on either side of the border

But it does serve the interests of certain political agendas to say otherwise...

[Jag_Warrior]

FYI----- The Lure of Mexico! :rolleyes:
It is now estimated that between 600, and 800,000 Americans live in Baja!
Why not a more accurate count?
Mexico is a place you can lose yourself. A lot of Americans find that aspect very apealling!

600K to 800K Americans living in Baja? Wasn't Memo Gidley born there? :D I'm assuming most of those Americans are there legally? But even if the entire 800K are there illegally, in one year alone (2000), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated that the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increased by 408,000. And the estimated total stands between 12-15 million.

I have no problem with Mexico or Mexicans. A girl from Monterrey stole my heart a several years ago. Who knows, maybe I'll end up there someday. But when it comes down to the last bet, I'm an American and I believe in what's best for America first and foremost. I'm sorry about the suffering on the southern side of the border. But that's something their government needs to deal with. If the guns are flowing into their country from here, and they don't want to enforce meaningful border security, then I guess they get what they get. But on our side, all it's going to take is some 60 year old Texas rancher getting mowed down by cartel machine gun fire, while defending his property, and Obama & Clinton will have to do more than send in some pistol packing Fed agents.

I'd rather not see it get to that point.

[Jag_Warrior]

No, they got them from all those folks who "lose" their weapon down at the local pawn shop or some other "transaction" while serving in the military on either side of the border

But it does serve the interests of certain political agendas to say otherwise...

Odd that you'd mention pawn shops.


A US Marshal accused of stealing government property has been shot dead execution-style in the lawless Mexican border town of Juarez in the latest murder along the violence-gripped Rio Grande frontier.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/5057965/US-marshall-executed-in-lawless-Mexican-town-of-Juarez.html

[Malbec]

But with the violence now spilling over into the U.S., I personally have no problem with troops on the border. These arrogant cartels have never been truly spanked before. If the situation escalates and it goes from having some weekend warrior National Guard troops to needing a detachment from the 82nd Airborne with helicopters (is that currently legal?), I give it two weeks and all of a sudden the border will become quiet and safe. Selling some kilos of coke in the U.S. probably won't seem like such a good idea if you have to face down one of these...

Interestingly the US could learn a little from Iran on this issue.

Like the US Iran has a neighbour in Afghanistan that has drugs high on its export earner list. Like the US Iran finds itself the prime trafficking route. Like the US the drug traffickers from Afghanistan don't bother with a sachet stashed in a sock or too and just go for fully loaded trucks with heavy machine guns on top.

The Iranians posted their army on their border with Afghanistan and shot at anything they thought was smuggling drugs. Methinks that the rules of engagement for the Iranian army and revolutionary guards are somewhat looser than those for the US armed forces.

The end result is that the only time drug trafficking through Iran took a hit was when the Taliban got bored with exporting drugs. I guess some Iranians felt better that the army was doing something positive, but the fact is that all the army action did nothing to reduce the flow.

Should the US deploy troops? Possibly. I don't know the details on the ground but if these druggies are threatening US lives directly on the ground, whether civilians or less well equipped security forces then the US is obliged to do so. However I wouldn't expect any reduction in the volume of drugs trafficked.

[Tazio]

600K to 800K Americans living in Baja? Wasn't Memo Gidley born there? :D I'm assuming most of those Americans are there legally? But even if the entire 800K are there illegally, in one year alone (2000), the U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimated that the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. increased by 408,000. And the estimated total stands between 12-15 million.I think that you misunderstood my point. I wasn't arguing the legality of Americans living in Mexico. I think they like the freedom from beuacratic influence on them! I'm painfully aware of the amount of Illegal aliens in this country. My point is it will take a major 180% change in practical application of government institutions of Mexico to change the mind set! We have 12-15 million illegal aliens in this country as I speak. They are illegal yet they are here. Isn't this just as big a failure of the American Government as what is going on in a traditionally dangerous strip of border between the U.S, and Mexico? It's our governments failing regardless of which faction of our government you think should accept the blame!(the illegal Aliens that is)

[Jag_Warrior]

I primarily blame the U.S. government for the illegal alien problem we have in the U.S. They're here. They're not going to leave. If we deport them, they come back the next day. They now have a political base and a voice in the media. In short, we are pretty well f'd on that issue.

With the day laborers, we also get drug runners, kidnappers and sex slavers. Bush and the neocons spent more time thinking about what was for lunch than this issue. Maybe the solution to the crime problem on the border is tied to immigration reform... I don't know. But 300 or 400 agents with Sigs and Glocks is barely even a band-aid. I wonder if the political will is even there to address the issue. Maybe Americans now expect fixes to every problem to not involve any pain or controversy.

[markabilly]

Odd that you'd mention pawn shops.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/5057965/US-marshall-executed-in-lawless-Mexican-town-of-Juarez.html


I had heard maybe ten or more years ago, that there were a lot of fully automatic M-16s that would go AWOL from Fort Hood, and that there were many pawnshops and "pawnshops" down around Killeen that seemed to be doing well.............and why only here and not there?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I primarily blame the U.S. government for the illegal alien problem we have in the U.S. They're here. They're not going to leave. If we deport them, they come back the next day. They now have a political base and a voice in the media. In short, we are pretty well f'd on that issue.

With the day laborers, we also get drug runners, kidnappers and sex slavers. Bush and the neocons spent more time thinking about what was for lunch than this issue. Maybe the solution to the crime problem on the border is tied to immigration reform... I don't know. But 300 or 400 agents with Sigs and Glocks is barely even a band-aid. I wonder if the political will is even there to address the issue. Maybe Americans now expect fixes to every problem to not involve any pain or controversy.

Your last line has always been true Jag. No country's voters ever seem to understand nothing worth having comes easy or free.

There is no political will for immigration reform because there wasnt 8 years ago, there wasn't 4 and there wont be now. The illegals were and are the biggest immigration issue the US has ever faced and even after the amnesty that Reagan brought in during his years as President, the door was never slammed shut. It all comes back to one of my personal theories that if a law is never enforced properly, it might as well not be there and the US gov't has refused to defend its border from illegals and all the problems that have come with it.

I don't see Obama fixing this BTW, I think this is all window dressing with Clinton admitting fault....

[Easy Drifter]

And Canada is every bit as bad. We just don't have the Mexican problem but we sure do from other areas.
Probably the most stupid thing here is that as soon as someone yells refugee it takes years to deal with them.
They get all the protection from the Cdn. Charter of Rights and Freedom that citizens do. Thank you Trudeau and the very left leaning Surpreme Court of Canada.
In the meantime they receive all sorts of Govt. aid and basically wander around free. If it looks like they are going to be deported many just 'disappear'.

[Mark in Oshawa]

And Canada is every bit as bad. We just don't have the Mexican problem but we sure do from other areas.
Probably the most stupid thing here is that as soon as someone yells refugee it takes years to deal with them.
They get all the protection from the Cdn. Charter of Rights and Freedom that citizens do. Thank you Trudeau and the very left leaning Surpreme Court of Canada.
In the meantime they receive all sorts of Govt. aid and basically wander around free. If it looks like they are going to be deported many just 'disappear'.

Drifter...it is bad, but in the US they are close to 4% of the population. Our numbers of illegals are not THAT high....

[Easy Drifter]

Probably not, although I don't think we have a real clue how many there are.
I mean Customs and Immigration admit there are thousands that they have no idea where they are. Do you think they fill out the census forms? :rotflmao:
Also when you consider that the Toronto cops caught several this year that had been previously deported up to FIVE times you just have to wonder just how porous our border is, especially as many of them return by air.
I think the worst heard was one from Jamiaca that had been deported 4 times before and he entered by land from the US who had also deported him twice.
The worst of it is we and legit US citizens need passports to cross our respective borders. It almost seems easier for illegals!

Darn, I really should be working on my new book but I am still in a bad mood and writing humour when I am in a foul mood just does not come off.
And no it is not a book of bad Lone Ranger jokes. :eek:

[Jag_Warrior]

There is no political will for immigration reform because there wasnt 8 years ago, there wasn't 4 and there wont be now. The illegals were and are the biggest immigration issue the US has ever faced and even after the amnesty that Reagan brought in during his years as President, the door was never slammed shut. It all comes back to one of my personal theories that if a law is never enforced properly, it might as well not be there and the US gov't has refused to defend its border from illegals and all the problems that have come with it.

I don't see Obama fixing this BTW, I think this is all window dressing with Clinton admitting fault....

I don't see this as an issue that Obama is going to seriously tackle. Those that support almost complete amnesty comprise too large a part of his base of support, IMO. Nothing will be proposed by the Obama administration that hasn't been signed off on by the National Council of La Raza and a whole host of other pro amnesty groups. Bush and the neocons were happy with the cheap labor that the illegals provided to various mid size and larger businesses and industries. So he kept rather quiet. Obama serves the other extreme: the interests of the illegals themselves.

It's almost hard to believe that prior to the economic meltdown that immigration was one of the key issues on the table. If not for the cartels raising all kinds of hell on the border, I doubt one word would be said.

Increasing numbers of American farmers and ranchers are preparing themselves for armed conflict. They may be no match for the ex Mexican military and special forces personnel that now work for the cartels. But an American defending his home and family isn't going to do a deep dive assessment of his enemy.

I'm just saying that these Americans on the border need some relief and they need it sooner than later. If the Mexicans and the U.S. government can't provide the relief, there are more than a few private groups in the U.S. that are willing to do it... and not all of these people are what I would call "reasonable."

[markabilly]

Pelosi says it is "unamerican" to be conducting raids and making illegals go home....me?? I just think it is usually a waste of time, since most return anyway...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I don't see this as an issue that Obama is going to seriously tackle. Those that support almost complete amnesty comprise too large a part of his base of support, IMO. Nothing will be proposed by the Obama administration that hasn't been signed off on by the National Council of La Raza and a whole host of other pro amnesty groups. Bush and the neocons were happy with the cheap labor that the illegals provided to various mid size and larger businesses and industries. So he kept rather quiet. Obama serves the other extreme: the interests of the illegals themselves.

It's almost hard to believe that prior to the economic meltdown that immigration was one of the key issues on the table. If not for the cartels raising all kinds of hell on the border, I doubt one word would be said.

Increasing numbers of American farmers and ranchers are preparing themselves for armed conflict. They may be no match for the ex Mexican military and special forces personnel that now work for the cartels. But an American defending his home and family isn't going to do a deep dive assessment of his enemy.

I'm just saying that these Americans on the border need some relief and they need it sooner than later. If the Mexicans and the U.S. government can't provide the relief, there are more than a few private groups in the U.S. that are willing to do it... and not all of these people are what I would call "reasonable."


Explain to me why Obama was worthy of your vote then? As much as you hated the neo-cons, McCain wasn't one of them and while he was soft on immigration himself a few years back, I would feel as someone who lived near the border a heck of a lot more confident in McCain putting a stop to raids by Mexicans over the border.....

[Jag_Warrior]

Explain to me why Obama was worthy of your vote then? As much as you hated the neo-cons, McCain wasn't one of them and while he was soft on immigration himself a few years back, I would feel as someone who lived near the border a heck of a lot more confident in McCain putting a stop to raids by Mexicans over the border.....

If immigration had been my primary issue, I would have voted for "none of the above" this past election. Bob Barr was the candidate that I was going to vote for, but even his views on immigration were counter to my own:

Open borders to anyone who wants to cross, with screening.

As for McCain, you mean the same John McCain who co-sponsored an immigration amnesty bill with Ted Kennedy: S1433, the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill? Now, with that said, McCain's position on immigration was probably (a little) closer to my own than either of the other two (Obama or Barr). But like I said, by the time I cast my vote, immigration wasn't the primary issue on my mind. The economy and banking system occupied my thoughts about 23 hours a day then. Things have gotten a bit better... I'm able to sleep a good 5 hours a night now and visitors no longer need a password to enter my home. :D

I actually don't live anywhere near the border (with Mexico). Where I currently live, we don't really have a major issue with illegals. This is just an issue that caught my attention, that I thought might make a good topic for broad discussion here.

[Jag_Warrior]

Arianna Huffington was on CNBC this morning. She advocated the decriminalization (not legalization) of marijuana. She pointed out that California was almost there. From a libertarian standpoint, I find it hard to argue against that position. From a cost standoint, locking up nonviolent pot smokers, while having to release certain other criminals (to ease over-crowding) makes even less sense, IMO. So moral concerns aside, I understand (maybe agree with) what some are saying.

But here's the part that I'm not quite clear on. Often I hear people comparing the current "War on Drugs" with Prohibition. And of course, there was a great deal of violence associated with the organized crime gangs that ran liquor during Prohibition. My dad told me a story about a speakeasie where he would sometimes stop by for a drink getting swept with a Tommy gun one night. Wild times! Anyway, here's the disconnect: the Volstead Act/18th Amendment did not prohibit the possession of alcoholic spirits. It was not against the law to use alcohol. It prohibited the manufacture, sale and import/export of spirits. By passing the 21st Amendment/repealing the 18th Amendment, thereby making previously illegal sources of production legal, legitimate businesses took the place of the gangs. That's how the profits were removed from their grasp. It had absolutely nothing to do with the legality of possession.

A long way around the barn to ask this question, but to take the profits out of the drugs sold by the cartels, how would decriminalizing the possession and use marijuana accomplish that?

[AAReagles]

Excellent thread, especially since CNN, 60 Minutes & mainstream media finally starting covering this stuff about 14 months behind the LA Times' reports on the situation, in a series called "Mexico Under Siege".

Not so sure about "investing" millions to the Mexican Gov't., since there is quite a bit of corruption taking place. If their reassignment of military forces continues to have a positive effect, then ok. Otherwise I say forget it.

Officials may have to reinstate capital punishment - at least a summarized version for the drug lords themselves - since it would be no surprise, like here in California, that there are corrupt guards who assist in maintaining communications between them and their respective organizations - where those in prison are still able to call the shots and settle scores.

Offering some significant bounties to anonymous informants wouldn't hurt either.


Naturally part of the focus of a solution involves some form of gun control; some of which I have no problem with. As I don't think any individual needs to possess a Barret sniper rifle (.50 Cal) - a weapon that can do far more destruction than an individual going off with an AK47 (along with other firearms within their possession).

However I'd like to see an improvement on (US) Gov. Control as well. Starting with the flawed logic of offering foreign "aid", which usually consists of military arms somewhere down the line.

It's bad enough that we've had (for decades) war-profiteers as lobbyists orchestrating political decisions, and it certainly doesn't make sense that US troops are being engaged in military conflict with former "allies" (Taliban & Iraqis).

Why I'm bringing this up is that there is some speculation starting to surface about black market weapons being transferred thru the Mexico/Guatamala border; weapons left over from previous Central American conflicts that the US became involved in as a quartermaster for. US made M203 Grenade launchers/M16 combos and M72 LAW (Light Antitank Weapon).

So if gun control/drug legalization are on the table as a matter that needs to be focused on, then so perhaps should be the negligence of US foreign diplomacy.

In short, I don't want to see one American boot on that side of the border until accountability is focused on ALL aspects of this crisis. With exception to this idea...


... Get rid of the self-serving DEA industry - 30 yrs. on ??? - results equal zip and worse... I would prefer something somewhat more targeted and surgical - Delta force / JTF2 / SAS,etc..... this I could go for.

[Jag_Warrior]

Good post, AAR.

I think the weapon types claimed to be in Mexico just provided Obama, Hillary C. and Eric Holder with an opportunity to bring up the "Assault Weapons Ban" that Bill Clinton and Janet "Torch" Reno were so fond of.

As far as the Barrett series of sniper rifles, they are very effective at very long ranges. But they're also very heavy and not easy to conceal. As far as I know, no crime has ever been committed with a Barrett in the United States. Does a private citizen "need" a Barrett? I never get into that argument. I'm sure that one could make the argument that one does not "need" a Barrett M82, a semi-auto AK variant or for that matter, a Weatherby .300 Magnum bolt action. The Weatherby is thought of as a hunting rifle. But any weapon which can take down an elk at 1000 yards can also take down a man at the same range... much like the Barrett (it just has half the effective range as the Barrett +/-).

But I'm with you on digging into the diplomatic FUBAR's that contribute to this issue. Norinico and Polytech were set to ship thousands of full auto AK's to street gangs in the U.S. during Clinton's time in office - no one has ever been sent to jail for that. Interesting, eh? At that time, Clinton had Johnny Chung doing sleepovers at the White House and he took contributions funneled through Chung. All that to say, this issue of arms smuggling in Mexico is a LOT deeper and wider than just some U.S. Mom & Pop gun shops and straw buyers on the U.S. side of the border helping to smuggle weapons into Mexico. Just like with Chung/Norinco/Polytech and Clinton/Reno years ago, when big money is involved, arms smuggling happens on a massive scale. The RPG's, LAW's, full auto/select fire M-16's and AK47/74's did not come from civillian sources in the U.S. And I'm sure that's why the Mexicans won't provide the serial number information. I've seen so many people on this board refer to an AR-15 as a "machine gun", so as long as the Mexicans and the U.S. based gun grabbers can keep the waters muddied and the hoople heads in the general population confused, they can use the press to lay 100% of the blame at our door.

Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now, Obama... none of them has gone to great lengths to secure the border. I feel bad for the citizens living in southern border states. Kidnappings are at record highs in several of those states, from what I've read. But compared to offending the National Council of La Raza, apparently those people are (politically) expendable. Some more "aggressive" version of the Minute Men may end up taking up the cause... and that's going to get ugly. But people are only going to put up with this silliness for so long.

[AAReagles]

Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now, Obama... none of them has gone to great lengths to secure the border. I feel bad for the citizens living in southern border states. Kidnappings are at record highs in several of those states, from what I've read. But compared to offending the National Council of La Raza, apparently those people are (politically) expendable. Some more "aggressive" version of the Minute Men may end up taking up the cause... and that's going to get ugly. But people are only going to put up with this silliness for so long.

Exactly, and that is the undesireable situation I can see unfolding - not that I would blame the Joe Horn types, as I wouldn't mind having neighbors like him defending family/property in the community.

In reference to the Barret, there were others uses I was concerned about, particularly when untilized with armored-piercing rounds. Though I agree, it would more than likely involve 'suicide-mission' objectives.

[gloomyDAY]

Check out the interview: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7971732.stm

[Roamy]

Good interview Yes I agree with Calderon - We need to send some troops down there and start shooting some MFRs

[gloomyDAY]

Good interview Yes I agree with Calderon - We need to send some troops down there and start shooting some MFRs?

[Jag_Warrior]

Yeah, I listened to that twice and I didn't get that from it either. He's not inviting us to send troops in or clamp down on the border. I heard rah, rah Mexico (making progress), blah, blah USA (needs to do more to deal with drug demand, corruption and arms on our side of the border). It is a two-way street. But the level of corruption in Mexico dwarfs that in the U.S. by an incredible amount.

Hey, I bet if the U.S. stopped selling small arms to the Mexican government and military, that "90% of the arms in Mexico come from the U.S." figure will drop substantially. Let's give that a shot and see what happens. ;)

I admit that he made some valid points during that interview. But I'm also sure that I saw his nose grow about six inches as he was speaking.

[Jag_Warrior]

Something just struck me as we're discussing drugs and dealers here.

Does anyone else see the irony in the President of Mexico's name? I kept thinking, "Calderon, Calderon... where have I heard that name before?" Then it hit me. My favorite show from the 80's! The most (in)famous villain on that show was named Calderon:
http://www.xbox365.com/gdb/images/EpZFAVVkpEUthunjQg/Miami_Vice_1_500.jpg

Freeze, Miami Vice! :D

[AAReagles]

Yeah, I listened to that twice and I didn't get that from it either. He's not inviting us to send troops in or clamp down on the border. I heard rah, rah Mexico (making progress), blah, blah USA (needs to do more to deal with drug demand, corruption and arms on our side of the border). It is a two-way street. But the level of corruption in Mexico dwarfs that in the U.S. by an incredible amount....

It's going to be hard to convince anyone outside of Mexico, much less in it that the Gov' there has things in order. Especially when considering their 'early prison release' program (the 59 prisoners that escaped on from an inside job).