The Drug War in Mexico: Its Relation to U.S. Drug and Gun Laws
2 views
Skip to first unread message
J Reed Brundage
Aug 8, 2009, 8:52:25 PM8/8/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
I am a US citizen living in Mexico. I love where I live and benefit
greatly from it, economically and otherwise. Distressingly, a war is
being fought in Mexico over suppression drug cartels that supply the
black market for illegal drugs in the United States. Until recently, I
tried to distance my life in Mexico from this war.
However, in early July, this war came to o close to ignore. One
Saturday morning, several federal police stations in the State of
Michoacán, were I live, were attacked by members of a drug cartel in
retaliation for the arrest of one of their leaders. I had to ask
myself, “As a US citizen living in - and loving – Mexico, how do I
understand and respond to this war that so greatly affects my Mexican
neighbors and their country.”
President Obama, in a press conference held with President Calderon in
Mexico in April of this year, acknowledged that the United States is
implicated in the drug war in Mexico and thus is responsible, in part,
for the damage it wreaks on the Mexican people and their institutions.
The President said, “A demand for these drugs in the United States is
what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being
waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States.”
In the same press conference, President Obama acknowledged, “…we have
responsibilities... We have to do our part. We have to crack down on
drug use in our cities and towns. We have to stem the southbound flow
of guns and cash.” In speaking of “cracking down on drug use,” he was
referring to the US government’s forty-year long “War on Drugs.” While
speaking of stemming “the southbound flow of guns….,” he sidestepped
the press’ questions about any efforts to control the sale of assault
weapons.
I believe that the President’s statements point to a paradox in United
States policy and law that lies at the root of the United States’ role
in the Mexican drug war. On one hand, the drug criminalization laws of
the “War on Drugs” give rise to the black market which supplies the
profits at stake in the war. On the other hand, the lack of laws
adequately regulating the sale of assault weapons makes available
these weapons of war.
This is the paradox: drugs are illegal to sell or use, but the sale of
assault weapons is legal. What then, can I, a US citizen living in
Mexico, do to address what strikes me as a basic contradiction?
I can do nothing here is Mexico. But in the U. S., I can explore and
understand U.S. policies and laws and then support changes to:
1. The War on Drugs through implementation of a public health model
of drug abuse that focuses on education, treatment, harm reduction,
and decriminalization of use, and gives serious consideration to
legalization of such drugs as marijuana.
2. Gun control laws that, while respecting the rights of citizens
to own guns for protection of their homes or recreational use, removes
from all markets weapons such as semi-automatic assault and high
caliber rifles and implements background checks on all purchasers to
prevent criminal purchases.
greatly from it, economically and otherwise. Distressingly, a war is
being fought in Mexico over suppression drug cartels that supply the
black market for illegal drugs in the United States. Until recently, I
tried to distance my life in Mexico from this war.
However, in early July, this war came to o close to ignore. One
Saturday morning, several federal police stations in the State of
Michoacán, were I live, were attacked by members of a drug cartel in
retaliation for the arrest of one of their leaders. I had to ask
myself, “As a US citizen living in - and loving – Mexico, how do I
understand and respond to this war that so greatly affects my Mexican
neighbors and their country.”
President Obama, in a press conference held with President Calderon in
Mexico in April of this year, acknowledged that the United States is
implicated in the drug war in Mexico and thus is responsible, in part,
for the damage it wreaks on the Mexican people and their institutions.
The President said, “A demand for these drugs in the United States is
what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being
waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States.”
In the same press conference, President Obama acknowledged, “…we have
responsibilities... We have to do our part. We have to crack down on
drug use in our cities and towns. We have to stem the southbound flow
of guns and cash.” In speaking of “cracking down on drug use,” he was
referring to the US government’s forty-year long “War on Drugs.” While
speaking of stemming “the southbound flow of guns….,” he sidestepped
the press’ questions about any efforts to control the sale of assault
weapons.
I believe that the President’s statements point to a paradox in United
States policy and law that lies at the root of the United States’ role
in the Mexican drug war. On one hand, the drug criminalization laws of
the “War on Drugs” give rise to the black market which supplies the
profits at stake in the war. On the other hand, the lack of laws
adequately regulating the sale of assault weapons makes available
these weapons of war.
This is the paradox: drugs are illegal to sell or use, but the sale of
assault weapons is legal. What then, can I, a US citizen living in
Mexico, do to address what strikes me as a basic contradiction?
I can do nothing here is Mexico. But in the U. S., I can explore and
understand U.S. policies and laws and then support changes to:
1. The War on Drugs through implementation of a public health model
of drug abuse that focuses on education, treatment, harm reduction,
and decriminalization of use, and gives serious consideration to
legalization of such drugs as marijuana.
2. Gun control laws that, while respecting the rights of citizens
to own guns for protection of their homes or recreational use, removes
from all markets weapons such as semi-automatic assault and high
caliber rifles and implements background checks on all purchasers to
prevent criminal purchases.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Doug
Aug 14, 2009, 10:45:07 AM8/14/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
1. America's Wars on Nouns amount to subsidy programs for private
industry, including the prison industry (seeing as the US has the
highest absolute and per capita prison population on the planet,
mostly because of victimless "crimes" involving consensual
transactions. The so called 'War on Drugs,' which has been a colossal
and unmitigated failure since its inception (and it goes back more
than 40 years btw), is well described in a book I read recently,
"Drugs - America's Holy War." President after president admits that
the efforts to eradicate the sources, stem the flow, and ANYTHING else
they do simply doesn't work. Invariably, the conclusion they draw is
that "we" need to do more of the same.
(What's the definition of insanity?)
As an American living in Mexico, I am confronted with an unsettling
irony: were the United States to do the right thing (not that there's
a snowball's chance...) and address drugs as a public health issue and
not a religious crusade, which would involve decriminalizing and
perhaps regulating, the street price would drop radically: an ounce of
marijuana costs $300 in Seattle, well under $10 in Pátzcuaro (last I
heard, and it's been a while). There is nothing groundbreaking here
for the US: they could emulate the Netherlands, Switzerland, and other
countries that have successfully addressed the issue....even to the
point where weed's so easy it's not "cool" anymore for adolescents!
However, were TCWPIH (the current worst president in history) to do
that, my advice to expat Americans here would be to hop the next plane
out of Mexico - to ANYWHERE (except perhaps Colombia). Well-armed, US-
trained drug 'troops' in Mexico would suddenly find themselves out of
work, looking for other sources of income, such as kidnapping gringos
ricos.
2. As for gun control laws, here's an overview of gun control
historically, and most recently Australia's "success" (source:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=63564.0)
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to
1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control and from 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were r ounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a
total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves
were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935 and from 1948 to 1952, 20
million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964 and from 1964 to 1981,
100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970 and from 1971 to 1979,
300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956 and from 1975 to 1977,
one million
educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
--------- ---------------------
It has now been 2 years since gun owners in Australia were forced
by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by
their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million
dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44
percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now
up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in,
the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease
in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward
in the past
12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins and
assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above
prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear
politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,
yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
======================================================
In case I was too subtle above: The definition of insanity is doing
the same thing and expecting different results. The real reason for
citizens to bear arms is to defend themselves from 'their' government,
should it come to that. "Respecting the rights of citizens"
historically has not been a function of government. Turning them into
subjects has been.
Further (damn this is getting long ;-), I have to take issue with your
generalization about 'assault weapons.' Watch this 11-minute video and
see if you don't view the 'assault weapon' issue a little differently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0.
(Not meaning to divert the subject, I'd also add that many of the
public shooting tragedies seem timed to benefit the agenda of gun
control, and some have government connections and anomalies that don't
require a tinfoil hat to see. Before bemoaning another "sh*t happens"
tragedy, ask "who benefits?" The mother of them all (so far), 9-11
curiously benefited the agenda of the Project for a New American
Century, and really nobody else except perhaps the failing Israeli
computer industry in the wake of the tech crash, which magically rose
like a phoenix to become the world's predominant security industry.
The Port Arthur massacre occurred just before Australia's gun ban. "A
New South Wales police report indicates that 29 shots were fired at
the Broad Arrow, 19 ending as fatal head shots, 1 other fatal shot,
and 12 wounded. In about 90 seconds..." by a intellectually impaired
young man with no shooting or military experience. 19 fatal head shots
in 90 seconds? Think about it. The Columbine shootings equally exist
in a cloud of confusion, and I expect one could find holes in almost
any well-publicized shooting story.)
Cui bono? Who benefits?
industry, including the prison industry (seeing as the US has the
highest absolute and per capita prison population on the planet,
mostly because of victimless "crimes" involving consensual
transactions. The so called 'War on Drugs,' which has been a colossal
and unmitigated failure since its inception (and it goes back more
than 40 years btw), is well described in a book I read recently,
"Drugs - America's Holy War." President after president admits that
the efforts to eradicate the sources, stem the flow, and ANYTHING else
they do simply doesn't work. Invariably, the conclusion they draw is
that "we" need to do more of the same.
(What's the definition of insanity?)
As an American living in Mexico, I am confronted with an unsettling
irony: were the United States to do the right thing (not that there's
a snowball's chance...) and address drugs as a public health issue and
not a religious crusade, which would involve decriminalizing and
perhaps regulating, the street price would drop radically: an ounce of
marijuana costs $300 in Seattle, well under $10 in Pátzcuaro (last I
heard, and it's been a while). There is nothing groundbreaking here
for the US: they could emulate the Netherlands, Switzerland, and other
countries that have successfully addressed the issue....even to the
point where weed's so easy it's not "cool" anymore for adolescents!
However, were TCWPIH (the current worst president in history) to do
that, my advice to expat Americans here would be to hop the next plane
out of Mexico - to ANYWHERE (except perhaps Colombia). Well-armed, US-
trained drug 'troops' in Mexico would suddenly find themselves out of
work, looking for other sources of income, such as kidnapping gringos
ricos.
2. As for gun control laws, here's an overview of gun control
historically, and most recently Australia's "success" (source:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=63564.0)
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to
1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control and from 1915 to 1917,
1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were r ounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a
total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves
were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935 and from 1948 to 1952, 20
million political
dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964 and from 1964 to 1981,
100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970 and from 1971 to 1979,
300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956 and from 1975 to 1977,
one million
educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
--------- ---------------------
It has now been 2 years since gun owners in Australia were forced
by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by
their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million
dollars. The first year results are now in:
List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44
percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now
up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in,
the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease
in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward
in the past
12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins and
assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense
was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above
prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear
politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,
yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
======================================================
In case I was too subtle above: The definition of insanity is doing
the same thing and expecting different results. The real reason for
citizens to bear arms is to defend themselves from 'their' government,
should it come to that. "Respecting the rights of citizens"
historically has not been a function of government. Turning them into
subjects has been.
Further (damn this is getting long ;-), I have to take issue with your
generalization about 'assault weapons.' Watch this 11-minute video and
see if you don't view the 'assault weapon' issue a little differently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0.
(Not meaning to divert the subject, I'd also add that many of the
public shooting tragedies seem timed to benefit the agenda of gun
control, and some have government connections and anomalies that don't
require a tinfoil hat to see. Before bemoaning another "sh*t happens"
tragedy, ask "who benefits?" The mother of them all (so far), 9-11
curiously benefited the agenda of the Project for a New American
Century, and really nobody else except perhaps the failing Israeli
computer industry in the wake of the tech crash, which magically rose
like a phoenix to become the world's predominant security industry.
The Port Arthur massacre occurred just before Australia's gun ban. "A
New South Wales police report indicates that 29 shots were fired at
the Broad Arrow, 19 ending as fatal head shots, 1 other fatal shot,
and 12 wounded. In about 90 seconds..." by a intellectually impaired
young man with no shooting or military experience. 19 fatal head shots
in 90 seconds? Think about it. The Columbine shootings equally exist
in a cloud of confusion, and I expect one could find holes in almost
any well-publicized shooting story.)
Cui bono? Who benefits?
Rich Mont
Aug 14, 2009, 3:25:07 PM8/14/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
Thanks for the invitation to join this discussion J. It is true that
as United States citizens living in Mexico there is little that we can
do locally. That might make us a target and not only that we are bound
by Mexican laws not to involve ourselves politically. But back home
that is another mater!
I am a Texan by birth and do not see being able to change the law as
regards the use of weed in my lifetime. But maybe future generations
can address this. That is not to say that folks in Texas do not use
marijuana as matter of fact many executives in Dallas do not see any
problem in lighting up whenever they can. But nationally maybe we can
contact our representative in Congress to pass more favorable laws.
There are too many gun totting idiots in the States to do much about
gun control. They sure love their guns that is for sure! But I do not
see any reason other than lack of manpower that would prevent the
government for stopping the flow of guns in Mexico. They just have to
have the manpower assigned and the ganas to do it!
Many of my friends have seen what the American economy is doing to
many of the towns around Michoacan. I am sure that all around Mexico
young men are coming back home to face unemployment and idleness. That
is a recipe for trouble and involvement with the cartels. Immigration
reform is being pushed to the back of the line and I feel that this
will hurt relations between the USA and Mexico. It needs to be
addressed sooner than later otherwise the violence in Mexico will
become even more acute if that's possible
Just my thought on this matter. Hopefully connecting with this
discussion group will lead to some tangible results.
Thanks,
Rich Mont
as United States citizens living in Mexico there is little that we can
do locally. That might make us a target and not only that we are bound
by Mexican laws not to involve ourselves politically. But back home
that is another mater!
I am a Texan by birth and do not see being able to change the law as
regards the use of weed in my lifetime. But maybe future generations
can address this. That is not to say that folks in Texas do not use
marijuana as matter of fact many executives in Dallas do not see any
problem in lighting up whenever they can. But nationally maybe we can
contact our representative in Congress to pass more favorable laws.
There are too many gun totting idiots in the States to do much about
gun control. They sure love their guns that is for sure! But I do not
see any reason other than lack of manpower that would prevent the
government for stopping the flow of guns in Mexico. They just have to
have the manpower assigned and the ganas to do it!
Many of my friends have seen what the American economy is doing to
many of the towns around Michoacan. I am sure that all around Mexico
young men are coming back home to face unemployment and idleness. That
is a recipe for trouble and involvement with the cartels. Immigration
reform is being pushed to the back of the line and I feel that this
will hurt relations between the USA and Mexico. It needs to be
addressed sooner than later otherwise the violence in Mexico will
become even more acute if that's possible
Just my thought on this matter. Hopefully connecting with this
discussion group will lead to some tangible results.
Thanks,
Rich Mont
J Reed Brundage
Aug 14, 2009, 7:04:53 PM8/14/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
Doug,
It looks like we agree about changing the drug laws in the US. I read
part of the book you mention online. I am currently researching
information on alternative proposals that focus on a public health
model and will post it on the site as I find it.
As for guns, we see it differently. As you can see in my original
statement, I am not proposing taking guns away from law-abiding
citizens, only "remov(ing) from all markets weapons such as semi-
automatic assault and high caliber rifles and implement(ing)
shows or from private dealers, so there are no background checks. (See
the posted article regarding this).
Reed
It looks like we agree about changing the drug laws in the US. I read
part of the book you mention online. I am currently researching
information on alternative proposals that focus on a public health
model and will post it on the site as I find it.
As for guns, we see it differently. As you can see in my original
statement, I am not proposing taking guns away from law-abiding
citizens, only "remov(ing) from all markets weapons such as semi-
automatic assault and high caliber rifles and implement(ing)
background checks on all purchasers to prevent criminal purchases. "
Many of the guns entering Mexico from the US are purchased at gun
shows or from private dealers, so there are no background checks. (See
the posted article regarding this).
Reed
J Reed Brundage
Aug 14, 2009, 7:10:01 PM8/14/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
Rich,
Thanks for joining the discussion. I, also, am not optimistic about
the laws being changed, but I feel I can't just retreat into private
despair or cynicism. So I am seeking out groups in the US that are
addressing the issues, learning more and exploring how I might be
involved with them. I am posting what I find on this site.
Reed
Thanks for joining the discussion. I, also, am not optimistic about
the laws being changed, but I feel I can't just retreat into private
despair or cynicism. So I am seeking out groups in the US that are
addressing the issues, learning more and exploring how I might be
involved with them. I am posting what I find on this site.
Reed
boogieman
Aug 15, 2009, 9:02:32 PM8/15/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
Hi folks,
I spent 3 months in Patzcuaro and fell in love with it. The attack on
the Federal Police station happened about a week after my return. A
friend said it was lke being back in VietNam. I would have bee there
during the attack but couldn't afford to find a decent home at a
decent price.
I'm not a believr n politicians making real change for the better.
Maybe we can do go another route. I think discussions may help, sure
can't hurt.
boogiemann
I spent 3 months in Patzcuaro and fell in love with it. The attack on
the Federal Police station happened about a week after my return. A
friend said it was lke being back in VietNam. I would have bee there
during the attack but couldn't afford to find a decent home at a
decent price.
I'm not a believr n politicians making real change for the better.
Maybe we can do go another route. I think discussions may help, sure
can't hurt.
boogiemann
Rich Montoya
Aug 16, 2009, 1:30:17 PM8/16/09
to american...@googlegroups.com
Hello boogieman and all,
I left the USA in part to get away from the politics. Thinks are
starting to change up north but the politics is still way too combative.
Seems like not matter where one goes all things are still political. The
fabric of Michoacan in particular has corruption woven into tis cloak
with all the family relationships taking precedence! Case in point is La
Familia's godfather giving interviews on of which really caught my
attention where Tatu (or is it Tutu?) says that if only the federal
government would say out of it his organization would have provided much
better security for the state. His group would have been able to
eliminate all of the Zetas! Makes one wonder if they have what it takes
to provide peace and security compared to the regular authorities. That
is just me wonder out loud. Not really a viable solution I would think.
A friend said the same thing about thinking that he was back in Nam and
he was in the service so he should know. The bullet-ridden wall is still
there for everyone to see, a testimony to the state of things. Not sure
about the solution to things but hiding our heads in the sand is not one
of them. Perhaps showing support for the decent folks around here is
what it is going to take. Not abandoning them by continuing to visit and
spend time and money would help. Fear is a strong emotion and we should
not let it get the best of us!
We can do whatever we can to get our reps back in the States to pass
some of the sorely needed legislation to stop the sale of some of these
weapons and make every effort to prevent them from crossing the border.
Pushing for changes on drug laws would also help. Not how much that
would help with some of the naysayers out in force but we at least need
to make the effort!
Thanks for your comments.
Rich Mont
Gp
Aug 24, 2009, 1:50:16 PM8/24/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
Thanks for the invitation Reed and hello to others. I am not sure I
yet know how to work this system properly but I will work at it. I
just wanted to say now that I read the post on the UN and drug policy
and found it very helpful. It does seem to provide some ways to cut
into the problem and solutions. More later, Gary
yet know how to work this system properly but I will work at it. I
just wanted to say now that I read the post on the UN and drug policy
and found it very helpful. It does seem to provide some ways to cut
into the problem and solutions. More later, Gary
Rich Montoya
Aug 24, 2009, 2:53:43 PM8/24/09
to american...@googlegroups.com
Welcome aboard Gary,
Maybe the USA could learn something from Mexico. They just recently
changed the law to not be so harsh in their treatment of nominal users
of drugs, that is those found in possession of very small quantities of
the drugs. These I imagine are not the true hardcore users. Mexico is
far from perfect but it seems that they are starting to go in the right
direction in address drug usage.
JMOHO,
Rich Mont
J Reed Brundage
Aug 24, 2009, 6:18:56 PM8/24/09
to american...@googlegroups.com
Gary,
I am glad you found the post on the UN helpful. Actually, I am still working on editing it so that it is clear and as relevant to our concerns as I can get it. I will post a message when it is "more ready."
Reed
Gp
Aug 26, 2009, 12:51:12 PM8/26/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
Thanks for inviting me to participate in this group Reed. I come to
this as a Canadian so am not sure what I can contribute, but will try
not to sound too stupid. I am still not sure what the purpose of
this discussion group is: what is the hoped for outcome? If it is an
attempt to allow us all an opportunity to learn something about one of
the most complicated relationships in the world, them I am all for
it. I will just say a little about where I come from on some of this.
The US is an exceptional state. By this I don’t mean the best state
but a state that stands out among all other states in the world and so
doesn’t fit many of our models of how nation-states operate. It is
exceptional both in terms of public attitudes (the only other state
that comes close is Israel), the most religious nation in the western,
industrialized world, the largest military in the world, and (for the
moment) the most economically powerful state in the world. All of
these affect the US relationship to others. While Mexico’s
relationship to the US differs somewhat from that of Canada, Canada is
in much the same position as is Mexico.
Just a couple of examples: Mexico City has recently passed
legislation decriminalizing small quantities of the drugs (including
heroin). For Mexico City the question has been: when are the
American going to intervene? What will they do to try and stop this?
Canada has gone through the same thing many times. Canada had a Royal
Commission on the use of illegal drugs which for years was described
as the best examination of drug use yet completed. However, nothing
has come of it. In 2005 a Bill was introduced in the Canadian House
to decriminalize marihuana but did not make it to a vote. Vancouver
has had, for about 3 years, a site for drug use. Addicts must bring
their own drugs but can administer them with clean needles and under
supervision. There has been constant pressure from the federal
government to block this. Why? Is it because of threats from the
US? Or the government not wanting to be in violation of international
treaties? (Although they have found it easy to disregard other
treaties they have signed.) Local people were able to divert this
federal attack for a short time by going to court and successfully
arguing that what they were doing was a public health measure (and
thus under the control of the province) rather than a criminal matter
(a federal concern). Can this be done by others? That is, can local
authorities put harm reduction ahead of zero tolerance and live to
tell the story?
So the question is: how does the rest of the world, especially that
part close to the US, experiment with dealing with difficult issue
without interference? It is only through developing a variety of
approaches that we find the best solutions.
Much of the US discussion of gun control sounds very strange to most
other people in the world I am sure.
a. Not all gun control is the same - some is good and some is
ineffective. One has to sort the wheat from the chaff. I think Reed
has begun to provide some material to discuss.
b. Dealing with violence is a very complicated matter and as in most
other areas we should strive not to be reductionist. Nothing can be
reduced to a single explanation. For this reason I found Doug’s
comments quite offensive (I’m sorry I can’t find a softer term). If
there is indeed a correlation between the events he lists, this does
not mean there is any causal relationship. If I were a Jew or any of
the other groups listed I would feel quite offended to hear a complex
historical and cultural matter reduced to the number of guns. It is
equally offensive to hear that classroom shootings can become swept up
in conspiracy theory. This prevents us from really trying to figure
out what is going on with a nation.
c. So much of our thinking about guns and crime is built on a
foundation of there being good guys and bad guys. What if we
eliminated that dichotomy from our thinking, after all bad guys were
once good guys. And as we know, at one time good guy can one day pick
up an available firearm and shoot a spouse, becoming one of the bad
guys.
As an outsider it seems to me there is a need to step back and take a
broad view: what goes on in other nations/cultures? What varieties
of policies have been developed around the US? And perhaps most
important, what is the Mexican viewpoint on so much of this?
We can step back a little by considering the discussion paper on this
web site about the UN and drug policy.
a. It is clear that the UN has become meaningless in a number of
areas. Some of this seems to come from the fact that the US pays
almost 50% of the costs of the UN and this gives them a sense of
entitlement as to how that money is spent. Can this be changed?
The other matter is the veto held by the USA, China and Russia I
think. If this cannot be changed there is little room for other
changes as one or more of these three states can tie up most affairs
of the UN. It doesn’t take long, however, to realize that reform of
the UN is not going to happen; it is far too complex and there are too
many competing interests. One small change suggested is to put a tax
on all planes, arms, missles, bombs, tanks, etc and this would more
than finance the budget of the UN.
If we are committed to harm reduction as a viable policy we need to
think about all of the features of this goal. If we just
decriminalize drugs this will not be enough. What must accompany this
to make it effective? (Detox programs, housing, support networks,
counseling, etc... What is sometimes referred to as the four pillars
of harm reduction). Mexico City apparently has changed the law so
that those in possession of small amounts of drugs are not charged but
are taken to the “station” for a talk and after the third such visit
are required to take a drug rehabilitation program.
Most of us are probably tired of what passes for politics these days,
but I believe that politics matters. If it didn’t matter then all
western capitalist nations would be the same. But they aren’t - there
is a great difference between say Ireland, Sweden, Canada and the
USA. Some of this has cultural roots but a great deal of it also
comes from politics. When there are competing interest groups and a
lack of consensus (and this is true of most nations), then you must
engage in politics to try and shape the nation in which you live.
Sorry to be so long (and more rambling than I would like) but I
conclude with a couple of questions: 1) Is the US control on UN drug
policy primarily a function of economics? 2) What violations of UN
drug policy exist in the USA? 3) If any, what has happened? 4) If
Mexico or Mexico City has indeed changed the law on possession of all
drugs, how did this happen?
this as a Canadian so am not sure what I can contribute, but will try
not to sound too stupid. I am still not sure what the purpose of
this discussion group is: what is the hoped for outcome? If it is an
attempt to allow us all an opportunity to learn something about one of
the most complicated relationships in the world, them I am all for
it. I will just say a little about where I come from on some of this.
The US is an exceptional state. By this I don’t mean the best state
but a state that stands out among all other states in the world and so
doesn’t fit many of our models of how nation-states operate. It is
exceptional both in terms of public attitudes (the only other state
that comes close is Israel), the most religious nation in the western,
industrialized world, the largest military in the world, and (for the
moment) the most economically powerful state in the world. All of
these affect the US relationship to others. While Mexico’s
relationship to the US differs somewhat from that of Canada, Canada is
in much the same position as is Mexico.
Just a couple of examples: Mexico City has recently passed
legislation decriminalizing small quantities of the drugs (including
heroin). For Mexico City the question has been: when are the
American going to intervene? What will they do to try and stop this?
Canada has gone through the same thing many times. Canada had a Royal
Commission on the use of illegal drugs which for years was described
as the best examination of drug use yet completed. However, nothing
has come of it. In 2005 a Bill was introduced in the Canadian House
to decriminalize marihuana but did not make it to a vote. Vancouver
has had, for about 3 years, a site for drug use. Addicts must bring
their own drugs but can administer them with clean needles and under
supervision. There has been constant pressure from the federal
government to block this. Why? Is it because of threats from the
US? Or the government not wanting to be in violation of international
treaties? (Although they have found it easy to disregard other
treaties they have signed.) Local people were able to divert this
federal attack for a short time by going to court and successfully
arguing that what they were doing was a public health measure (and
thus under the control of the province) rather than a criminal matter
(a federal concern). Can this be done by others? That is, can local
authorities put harm reduction ahead of zero tolerance and live to
tell the story?
So the question is: how does the rest of the world, especially that
part close to the US, experiment with dealing with difficult issue
without interference? It is only through developing a variety of
approaches that we find the best solutions.
Much of the US discussion of gun control sounds very strange to most
other people in the world I am sure.
a. Not all gun control is the same - some is good and some is
ineffective. One has to sort the wheat from the chaff. I think Reed
has begun to provide some material to discuss.
b. Dealing with violence is a very complicated matter and as in most
other areas we should strive not to be reductionist. Nothing can be
reduced to a single explanation. For this reason I found Doug’s
comments quite offensive (I’m sorry I can’t find a softer term). If
there is indeed a correlation between the events he lists, this does
not mean there is any causal relationship. If I were a Jew or any of
the other groups listed I would feel quite offended to hear a complex
historical and cultural matter reduced to the number of guns. It is
equally offensive to hear that classroom shootings can become swept up
in conspiracy theory. This prevents us from really trying to figure
out what is going on with a nation.
c. So much of our thinking about guns and crime is built on a
foundation of there being good guys and bad guys. What if we
eliminated that dichotomy from our thinking, after all bad guys were
once good guys. And as we know, at one time good guy can one day pick
up an available firearm and shoot a spouse, becoming one of the bad
guys.
As an outsider it seems to me there is a need to step back and take a
broad view: what goes on in other nations/cultures? What varieties
of policies have been developed around the US? And perhaps most
important, what is the Mexican viewpoint on so much of this?
We can step back a little by considering the discussion paper on this
web site about the UN and drug policy.
a. It is clear that the UN has become meaningless in a number of
areas. Some of this seems to come from the fact that the US pays
almost 50% of the costs of the UN and this gives them a sense of
entitlement as to how that money is spent. Can this be changed?
The other matter is the veto held by the USA, China and Russia I
think. If this cannot be changed there is little room for other
changes as one or more of these three states can tie up most affairs
of the UN. It doesn’t take long, however, to realize that reform of
the UN is not going to happen; it is far too complex and there are too
many competing interests. One small change suggested is to put a tax
on all planes, arms, missles, bombs, tanks, etc and this would more
than finance the budget of the UN.
If we are committed to harm reduction as a viable policy we need to
think about all of the features of this goal. If we just
decriminalize drugs this will not be enough. What must accompany this
to make it effective? (Detox programs, housing, support networks,
counseling, etc... What is sometimes referred to as the four pillars
of harm reduction). Mexico City apparently has changed the law so
that those in possession of small amounts of drugs are not charged but
are taken to the “station” for a talk and after the third such visit
are required to take a drug rehabilitation program.
Most of us are probably tired of what passes for politics these days,
but I believe that politics matters. If it didn’t matter then all
western capitalist nations would be the same. But they aren’t - there
is a great difference between say Ireland, Sweden, Canada and the
USA. Some of this has cultural roots but a great deal of it also
comes from politics. When there are competing interest groups and a
lack of consensus (and this is true of most nations), then you must
engage in politics to try and shape the nation in which you live.
Sorry to be so long (and more rambling than I would like) but I
conclude with a couple of questions: 1) Is the US control on UN drug
policy primarily a function of economics? 2) What violations of UN
drug policy exist in the USA? 3) If any, what has happened? 4) If
Mexico or Mexico City has indeed changed the law on possession of all
drugs, how did this happen?
Doug
Aug 26, 2009, 2:18:16 PM8/26/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
No to put too fine a point on it, but the title of this thread is "The
Drug War in Mexico: Its Relation to U.S. Drug and Gun Laws," not "Have
Another Cup of Coffee And Free-associate Until You Get Tired Of
Typing."
> b. Dealing with violence is a very complicated matter and as in most
> other areas we should strive not to be reductionist. Nothing can be
> reduced to a single explanation. For this reason I found Doug’s
> comments quite offensive (I’m sorry I can’t find a softer term). If
> there is indeed a correlation between the events he lists, this does
> not mean there is any causal relationship. If I were a Jew or any of
> the other groups listed I would feel quite offended to hear a complex
> historical and cultural matter reduced to the number of guns.
I think a member of those groups exterminated by 'their' governments
would find incredibly offensive your assertion that there's no
causality between their extermination and the fact that they were
unable to defend themselves, especially after being disarmed by the
government that killed them. Poor folks probably just couldn't
understand the 'the complex historical and cultural' aspects of being
rounded up and shot? Sorry, you poor dupes, better luck next time.
Extra credit: name a successful State-sponsored genocide where the
target population was well-armed and able to defend itself?
In any event, Gp, the subject here is not 'dealing with
violence' (again,this 'focus' thing).
> equally offensive to hear that classroom shootings can become swept up
> in conspiracy theory. This prevents us from really trying to figure
> out what is going on with a nation.
[We'll be back with the latest about Paris Hilton after this
commercial break]: this non-sequitur reflects the mainstream media/
pundit's way of sweeping under the rug any anomalies that don't fit
the official story. Why question the official story with facts, when
we can babble about generalities? (And better yet, be 'patriotic!')
Again, when it comes to seeing what's in front of one's face and
connecting dots, as opposed to bobble-headed parroting of talking
heads, the 9-11 comparison offers lessons, unless one is still wearing
rose-colored glasses on planet Coinkydink.
A connection between staged terror attacks and a government agenda?
Nah, surely not possible? (Google 'Operation Northwoods.')
> c. So much of our thinking about guns and crime is built on a
> foundation of there being good guys and bad guys. What if we
> eliminated that dichotomy from our thinking, after all bad guys were
> once good guys. And as we know, at one time good guy can one day pick
> up an available firearm and shoot a spouse, becoming one of the bad
> guys.
As 'Drugs - America's Holy War' posits (very effectively), the 'War on
Drugs' is based on morality, and the simplistic notion that 'drugs are
bad and we're good,' which as you suggest, doesn;t lead to clear
thinking. As for 'bad guys were once good guys,' I challenge you to do
a little research into psychopaths/sociopaths - as in the people who
seek and gain power - and tell me when they were 'good guys.' When was
Dick Cheney a 'good guy?' Henry Kissinger? Donald Rumsfeld - back in
the good ol' days when he used all his political clout to force
'legalization' of the poison aspartame?
> Sorry to be so long (and more rambling than I would like) but I
> conclude with a couple of questions: 1) Is the US control on UN drug
> policy primarily a function of economics? 2) What violations of UN
> drug policy exist in the USA? 3) If any, what has happened? 4) If
> Mexico or Mexico City has indeed changed the law on possession of all
> drugs, how did this happen?
Thanks for the apology. Let me try to address your final questions:
1) What does this thread have to do with the UN?
2) What does this thread have to do with the UN?
3) Umm, say what?
4) It appears the US didn't pressure Mexico to kill it, as they did in
2006.
Drug War in Mexico: Its Relation to U.S. Drug and Gun Laws," not "Have
Another Cup of Coffee And Free-associate Until You Get Tired Of
Typing."
> b. Dealing with violence is a very complicated matter and as in most
> other areas we should strive not to be reductionist. Nothing can be
> reduced to a single explanation. For this reason I found Doug’s
> comments quite offensive (I’m sorry I can’t find a softer term). If
> there is indeed a correlation between the events he lists, this does
> not mean there is any causal relationship. If I were a Jew or any of
> the other groups listed I would feel quite offended to hear a complex
> historical and cultural matter reduced to the number of guns.
would find incredibly offensive your assertion that there's no
causality between their extermination and the fact that they were
unable to defend themselves, especially after being disarmed by the
government that killed them. Poor folks probably just couldn't
understand the 'the complex historical and cultural' aspects of being
rounded up and shot? Sorry, you poor dupes, better luck next time.
Extra credit: name a successful State-sponsored genocide where the
target population was well-armed and able to defend itself?
In any event, Gp, the subject here is not 'dealing with
violence' (again,this 'focus' thing).
> equally offensive to hear that classroom shootings can become swept up
> in conspiracy theory. This prevents us from really trying to figure
> out what is going on with a nation.
commercial break]: this non-sequitur reflects the mainstream media/
pundit's way of sweeping under the rug any anomalies that don't fit
the official story. Why question the official story with facts, when
we can babble about generalities? (And better yet, be 'patriotic!')
Again, when it comes to seeing what's in front of one's face and
connecting dots, as opposed to bobble-headed parroting of talking
heads, the 9-11 comparison offers lessons, unless one is still wearing
rose-colored glasses on planet Coinkydink.
A connection between staged terror attacks and a government agenda?
Nah, surely not possible? (Google 'Operation Northwoods.')
> c. So much of our thinking about guns and crime is built on a
> foundation of there being good guys and bad guys. What if we
> eliminated that dichotomy from our thinking, after all bad guys were
> once good guys. And as we know, at one time good guy can one day pick
> up an available firearm and shoot a spouse, becoming one of the bad
> guys.
Drugs' is based on morality, and the simplistic notion that 'drugs are
bad and we're good,' which as you suggest, doesn;t lead to clear
thinking. As for 'bad guys were once good guys,' I challenge you to do
a little research into psychopaths/sociopaths - as in the people who
seek and gain power - and tell me when they were 'good guys.' When was
Dick Cheney a 'good guy?' Henry Kissinger? Donald Rumsfeld - back in
the good ol' days when he used all his political clout to force
'legalization' of the poison aspartame?
> Sorry to be so long (and more rambling than I would like) but I
> conclude with a couple of questions: 1) Is the US control on UN drug
> policy primarily a function of economics? 2) What violations of UN
> drug policy exist in the USA? 3) If any, what has happened? 4) If
> Mexico or Mexico City has indeed changed the law on possession of all
> drugs, how did this happen?
1) What does this thread have to do with the UN?
2) What does this thread have to do with the UN?
3) Umm, say what?
4) It appears the US didn't pressure Mexico to kill it, as they did in
2006.
Rich Montoya
Aug 26, 2009, 2:50:12 PM8/26/09
to american...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for your comments Gp,
Very thoughtful. It seems to me that from Obama's failure to comment on
the changes in Mexico's laws last week that the US does not plan to
interfere in what should purely be a Mexican decision. Brazil and now
Argentina are going the route of decriminalization of minor usage of
certain drugs. This is not to say that the American public condones drug
use but that it cannot be the morality controller for these types of
things. Maybe this failure (I really should not use failure but ..)
means that it is no longer trying to be the policeman to the world. I
would hope!
Very thoughtful. It seems to me that from Obama's failure to comment on
the changes in Mexico's laws last week that the US does not plan to
interfere in what should purely be a Mexican decision. Brazil and now
Argentina are going the route of decriminalization of minor usage of
certain drugs. This is not to say that the American public condones drug
use but that it cannot be the morality controller for these types of
things. Maybe this failure (I really should not use failure but ..)
means that it is no longer trying to be the policeman to the world. I
would hope!
Rich Mont.
Gp wrote:
> Thanks for inviting me to participate in this group Reed. I come to
> this as a Canadian so am not sure what I can contribute, but will try
> not to sound too stupid. I am still not sure what the purpose of
> this discussion group is: what is the hoped for outcome? If it is an
> attempt to allow us all an opportunity to learn something about one of
> the most complicated relationships in the world, them I am all for
> it. I will just say a little about where I come from on some of this.
> The US is an exceptional state. By this I don’t mean the best state
> but a state that stands out among all other states in the world and so
> doesn’t fit many of our models of how nation-states operate. It is
> exceptional both in terms of public attitudes (the only other state
> that comes close is Israel), the most religious nation in the western,
> industrialized world, the largest military in the world, and (for the
> moment) the most economically powerful state in the world. All of
> these affect the US relationship to others. While Mexico’s
> relationship to the US differs somewhat from that of Canada, Canada is
> in much the same position as is Mexico.
> Just a couple of examples: Mexico City has recently passed
> legislation decriminalizing small quantities of the drugs (including
> heroin). For Mexico City the question has been: when are the
> ...
Rich Montoya
Aug 26, 2009, 3:01:14 PM8/26/09
to american...@googlegroups.com
Just a quick comment on one point.
Seems to me that doing nothing sometimes in the best thing that the US
can do in many cases. Mexico is a sovereign nation after all is it not?
Seems to me that doing nothing sometimes in the best thing that the US
can do in many cases. Mexico is a sovereign nation after all is it not?
Doug
Aug 26, 2009, 5:15:55 PM8/26/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, the US has a long and sordid
history of 'doing something' when it would better serve the interests
of humanity if they didn't.
history of 'doing something' when it would better serve the interests
of humanity if they didn't.
J Reed Brundage
Aug 28, 2009, 1:28:31 PM8/28/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
Gary,
I found your post to be very thoughtful. It is good to have the
persective of an "outsider," that is, a non-US'er. That is one of the
many things I am finding valuable about living in Mexico. With the
help of Mexican friends and other non-US'ers, I can begin to see the
US and the implications of its power for the rest of the world from a
different point of view.
I will try to answer your questions about the purpose of the site. One
purpose certainly is to gather information and issue analyisis on key
issues of US policy that affect Mexico so that participants in the
group can learn about them and discuss them. The second purpose is to
explore what actions we might be able to take in the political
dynamics of our own countries.
I agree with your penultimate paragraph regarding politics. We may be
""tired" of it, but it is the arena where we have to engage the
issues. Examples of such involvement for me are supporting groups in
the US that advocate harm reduction, de-criminalization and
legalization of narcotics and other currently illegal drugs. For
example, yesterday I forwarded to the group a link to sign a pe tition
to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, to advocate
for her support for a bill to legalize the medical use of marijuana.
Your comments about there needing to be more changes than just
legalization is very valid. I think that the organizations that I have
listed on the Organizations page address the needs for public health
actions such as much greater resources being applied to treatment.
Think of all the billions of dollars that would be available if they
weren't spent on the police and jails.
Your questions about what US neighbors, Canada and Mexico can do to
make changes without US interference is a good one. Would you be
interested in exploring that regarding Canada and posting your
findings? My understanding of the recent change in Mexican law is that
it had as much to do with differentiating sellers from casual users,
so that the focus of the police is on the former. I posted a Time
magazine article about this. There are many more, such as on AlterNet,
an online news service.
As for your questons about the UN, the summary of papers and UN
documents that I have posted are all I know as of now. To me it is
quite clear that the US has called the shots for nearly fifty years.
The question, as posed in the paper that I summarized, is whether
nations other than the US, such as the EU, can assert themselves
enough to take independent actions and free themselves from the
constraints of the UN conventions. They have already been doing so in
significant ways.
As for the discussion of guns and gun laws, I am going to start a
separate discussion stream for continuing that discussion. I plan to
copy and post on the new discussion what you and others have written
about it.
I found your post to be very thoughtful. It is good to have the
persective of an "outsider," that is, a non-US'er. That is one of the
many things I am finding valuable about living in Mexico. With the
help of Mexican friends and other non-US'ers, I can begin to see the
US and the implications of its power for the rest of the world from a
different point of view.
I will try to answer your questions about the purpose of the site. One
purpose certainly is to gather information and issue analyisis on key
issues of US policy that affect Mexico so that participants in the
group can learn about them and discuss them. The second purpose is to
explore what actions we might be able to take in the political
dynamics of our own countries.
I agree with your penultimate paragraph regarding politics. We may be
""tired" of it, but it is the arena where we have to engage the
issues. Examples of such involvement for me are supporting groups in
the US that advocate harm reduction, de-criminalization and
legalization of narcotics and other currently illegal drugs. For
example, yesterday I forwarded to the group a link to sign a pe tition
to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, to advocate
for her support for a bill to legalize the medical use of marijuana.
Your comments about there needing to be more changes than just
legalization is very valid. I think that the organizations that I have
listed on the Organizations page address the needs for public health
actions such as much greater resources being applied to treatment.
Think of all the billions of dollars that would be available if they
weren't spent on the police and jails.
Your questions about what US neighbors, Canada and Mexico can do to
make changes without US interference is a good one. Would you be
interested in exploring that regarding Canada and posting your
findings? My understanding of the recent change in Mexican law is that
it had as much to do with differentiating sellers from casual users,
so that the focus of the police is on the former. I posted a Time
magazine article about this. There are many more, such as on AlterNet,
an online news service.
As for your questons about the UN, the summary of papers and UN
documents that I have posted are all I know as of now. To me it is
quite clear that the US has called the shots for nearly fifty years.
The question, as posed in the paper that I summarized, is whether
nations other than the US, such as the EU, can assert themselves
enough to take independent actions and free themselves from the
constraints of the UN conventions. They have already been doing so in
significant ways.
As for the discussion of guns and gun laws, I am going to start a
separate discussion stream for continuing that discussion. I plan to
copy and post on the new discussion what you and others have written
about it.
J Reed Brundage
Aug 28, 2009, 5:02:39 PM8/28/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
Doug,
Regarding your question, "What does this thread have to do with the
UN?" I researched, edited and posted the page about the UN Drug
conventions and the US role in controlling them because I found it
helpful to my understanding of the world-wide picture of the "War on
Drugs" and, again, the dominant role of my country, the US, in
formulating and maintaining prohibition by using it's economic power
to keep other countries in line.
This investigation also led me to consider that one hope for change is
the changing balance of power between the rest of the world and the
US. As the article discusses near the end, many of the European
countries, and others, like Canada and Australia, are more open to
changes towards harm reduction. As they, and possibly other countries
including Latin American ones, such as Brazil and hopefully Mexico,
become more powerful economically and politically relative to the US,
that could force the US to change. This posssibility was recently
given voice in the Declaration on Drug Policy of three past presidents
of Mexico, Brazil and Columbia. This week, the Argentian Supreme Court
declared arrest for possession of marijuna unconstitutional. See NY
Times article, Latin America Weighs Less Punitive Path to Curb Drug
Use at www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/world/americas/27latin.html. There
is a world-wide dynamic at work here.
The other side of the process is, of course, internal political action
within the US to bring change, which is what we estadounidenses
(US'ers) can focus on.
Regarding your question, "What does this thread have to do with the
UN?" I researched, edited and posted the page about the UN Drug
conventions and the US role in controlling them because I found it
helpful to my understanding of the world-wide picture of the "War on
Drugs" and, again, the dominant role of my country, the US, in
formulating and maintaining prohibition by using it's economic power
to keep other countries in line.
This investigation also led me to consider that one hope for change is
the changing balance of power between the rest of the world and the
US. As the article discusses near the end, many of the European
countries, and others, like Canada and Australia, are more open to
changes towards harm reduction. As they, and possibly other countries
including Latin American ones, such as Brazil and hopefully Mexico,
become more powerful economically and politically relative to the US,
that could force the US to change. This posssibility was recently
given voice in the Declaration on Drug Policy of three past presidents
of Mexico, Brazil and Columbia. This week, the Argentian Supreme Court
declared arrest for possession of marijuna unconstitutional. See NY
Times article, Latin America Weighs Less Punitive Path to Curb Drug
Use at www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/world/americas/27latin.html. There
is a world-wide dynamic at work here.
The other side of the process is, of course, internal political action
within the US to bring change, which is what we estadounidenses
(US'ers) can focus on.
J Reed Brundage
Sep 1, 2009, 11:18:51 AM9/1/09
to Del Parentesco Americano - On an American Kinship: the U.S. - Mexican Relationship
On the page International Drug Policy: the Inflluence of the U.S. on
United Nations Drug Policy on this site, I summarized papers
describing and critiquing world policy to prohibit psychoactive drugs,
as embodied in UN conventions and institutions, including the Office
on Drugs and Crime and the Commission on Drugs. From this overview I
have concluded the following:
1. The US has dominated world policy on drugs, establishing and
maintaining both domestic and - through the UN - world-wide policy
that makes psychoactive drugs illegal, their sale and use prohibited,
with severe punishments when the prohibition is violated.
2. This policy is based on an absolutistic, apocalyptic,
polarized view of drugs as an evil that needs to be attacked through a
“War on Drugs,” and eliminated for the salvation of humankind.
3. Such absolutistic polarizations always oversimplify the
complexities of reality and prevent an objective analysis of that
reality and consideration of alternatives.
4. Being absolutistic, such polarizations are fiercely resistant
to evaluation or change, demonizing anyone who questions them as in
league with the devil, desirous of destroying humanity.
This absolutistic view continues to drive US and UN drug policy to
this day, as presented in the UN world Drug Report, 2009.
More importantly, in its Executive Summary, this Report acknowledges,
" a growing chorus among politicians, the press, and even in public
opinion saying: drug control is not working. The broadcasting volume
is still rising and the message spreading." The Executive Summary then
focuses on several specific arguments against any rationales for
legalization. Therefore, the Report provides an excellent opportunity
to debate such arguments for continuing prohibition and against
legalization.
I respond to the arguments of the Executive Summary on a new page:
Critique of World Prohibitionist Drug Policy as Embodied in the 2009
World Drug Report of the UN.
An even more absolutistic, prohibitionist response to consideration of
legalization is laid out in:The Declaration of World Forum Against
Drugs, Stockholm Sweden, 2008 (See the page on Drug Policy Issues and
Alternatives for this citation.)
Reed
United Nations Drug Policy on this site, I summarized papers
describing and critiquing world policy to prohibit psychoactive drugs,
as embodied in UN conventions and institutions, including the Office
on Drugs and Crime and the Commission on Drugs. From this overview I
have concluded the following:
1. The US has dominated world policy on drugs, establishing and
maintaining both domestic and - through the UN - world-wide policy
that makes psychoactive drugs illegal, their sale and use prohibited,
with severe punishments when the prohibition is violated.
2. This policy is based on an absolutistic, apocalyptic,
polarized view of drugs as an evil that needs to be attacked through a
“War on Drugs,” and eliminated for the salvation of humankind.
3. Such absolutistic polarizations always oversimplify the
complexities of reality and prevent an objective analysis of that
reality and consideration of alternatives.
4. Being absolutistic, such polarizations are fiercely resistant
to evaluation or change, demonizing anyone who questions them as in
league with the devil, desirous of destroying humanity.
This absolutistic view continues to drive US and UN drug policy to
this day, as presented in the UN world Drug Report, 2009.
More importantly, in its Executive Summary, this Report acknowledges,
" a growing chorus among politicians, the press, and even in public
opinion saying: drug control is not working. The broadcasting volume
is still rising and the message spreading." The Executive Summary then
focuses on several specific arguments against any rationales for
legalization. Therefore, the Report provides an excellent opportunity
to debate such arguments for continuing prohibition and against
legalization.
I respond to the arguments of the Executive Summary on a new page:
Critique of World Prohibitionist Drug Policy as Embodied in the 2009
World Drug Report of the UN.
An even more absolutistic, prohibitionist response to consideration of
legalization is laid out in:The Declaration of World Forum Against
Drugs, Stockholm Sweden, 2008 (See the page on Drug Policy Issues and
Alternatives for this citation.)
Reed
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages