Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Mexico
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-11-2010, 01:45 PM
 
972 posts, read 3,917,089 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Write by: José Antonio Crespo
Source in spanish: Excélsior - Drogas: el factor externo
Translated with Google.


Even if the U.S. really wanted to fight the narco, powerful social and political reasons prevented from doing so or do not recommended.


In my opinion, one of the gravest errors of the current strategy against drug cartels was to have made its success rest (and was on) on variables on which our government has no control, but depend entirely extraneous agents . You can rightly say that it is indispensable treating police officers to fight corruption, strengthen and transparent customs system, monitor the financial network national regain control of prisons and penitentiaries, improve weapons and equipment for law enforcement because all or much-can-do in principle our government (which is different is that, for various reasons, also failed to do so.) More complicated is to set goals that are beyond our control, they are essentially exogenous, such as reducing drug demand in the U.S., the ban on arms sales, or persecution front of the cartels that operate there, the style Colombian and Mexican. There is little point in speeches and ceremonies, the U.S. government recognizes the responsibility that corresponds to this problem, if at the same time does not make much effort to influence the variables on which he could influence. But even if we wanted to, powerful political and social reasons prevent it, or do not recommended.

In 2008, Calderon said, for example: "These are international problems that only an international strategy can be solved (to be) able to reduce potential crime through supply reduction, drug supply, but also by reducing consumption and lowering of the economic rent of its markets "(7/X/08). United States devotes many resources to reduce consumption in their country and yet, demand has grown. But even if you spend ten times more funds, the market will not disappear. It will remain an incentive to supply that comes from Colombia and Mexico (and the U.S. itself, of course). If the reduction and disappearance of the U.S. market depends on the success of our strategy, then let us already failed.

On the other hand, Calderon told Spanish journalists: "It is inconceivable that the Mexican networks exist only on the Mexican side and cross the border to disappear by magic, as if there were no" (9/VI/08). And later said: "If the crime is given the corruption of the authorities (Mexico), tell me how it explains the world's largest market without the corruption of certain authorities in the U.S." (12/III/09). This suggested that there is not the same head-on effort to combat drug networks. And it's true, but America will not adopt the strategy Colombian or Mexican for that, precisely because they want to unleash on their territory an unstoppable wave of violence such as we have suffered from the countries south of the Bravo. There are not crazy, learned the lesson well with the prohibition of alcohol. Here we are just experimenting and learning on their own heads (because no one does in the lead of others). If it depends on the success of our strategy because we can take it for failure.

And as for arms control there, the sealing of the border with such trade or a ban on arms sales to certain caliber, Calderon said: "I'm doing my fight against corruption in the Mexican authorities .. . but I also need a good cleaning on the other side of the border. Washington needs to control the flow of arms into Mexico "(27/II/09). But it turns out that Americans, for historical and cultural reasons, since birth allowed the free sale of arms, elevating it to constitutional status. There seem to believe that that freedom hurts them, as suggested by our government. We have been told a thousand ways that will not change. Insisting on this is going round in circles. I said, if the success of our strategy depends on what you do or not do U.S. demand for drugs, fighting cartels front gringos, and the sale and transfer of arms, then we take it for lost. Hence the importance of thorough review that strategy, because if we wait for the United States do so and so, we will wait, while violence continues to grow here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2010, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Limestone,TN/Bucerias, Mexico
1,452 posts, read 3,181,514 times
Reputation: 501
The article linked below asks if the US government will join the debate with Mexico on legalizing drugs. Unfortunately, the US doesn't seem to be leaning that way. But how can there not be a serious international debate on this crucial subject when the drug plague has decimated so many communities and families in BOTH Mexico and the US? Sure, immigration is the prevailing scapgoat issue and it receives the major news headlines but isn't the drug issue so much more vital to find a solution to. People are being senselessly murdered - as opposed to the less lethal fact of illegal entry into the US to feed one's families!

Sadly, the issue on guns, which helps fuel the drug crisis (on both sides of the border), is defended under the lofty, "right to bear arms" phrase from the US Constitution. I suspect if the US's founding fathers returned to debate this issue, that in the interest of the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", they'd quickly amend the constition to protect the citizenry from the equally awful plague of *some* deadly, legal firearms. Without the current, relatively easy access to firearms (in the US) Mexico's drug cartels might not find it so easy to intimidate and murder both government troops and innocent civilians.

Daniel Robelo: Mexico's Presidents Are Considering Legalizing Drugs. Will the U.S. Join the Debate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 03:55 PM
 
3,204 posts, read 2,859,798 times
Reputation: 1547
If Mexico really wants to end the drug sales and arms problem then why wouldn't he be trying to close the border. Well, we all know the answer to that is the money coming in from the U.S. It's unbelievable that he can put the blame of these problems on the U.S. even to the point of suggesting we change our gun control laws. He advises his nationals to come here and take our services. Why would illegals not be welcome to come here, take what we offer our citizens, and suggest we change our laws? Hipocritical...and that's the nice word!

Mexico could enforce her border as easily as the US but they would lose the money. That's more important than the people of their own country. I hope you aren't buying that garbage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 04:13 PM
 
3,204 posts, read 2,859,798 times
Reputation: 1547
Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahSal View Post
The article linked below asks if the US government will join the debate with Mexico on legalizing drugs. Unfortunately, the US doesn't seem to be leaning that way. But how can there not be a serious international debate on this crucial subject when the drug plague has decimated so many communities and families in BOTH Mexico and the US? Sure, immigration is the prevailing scapgoat issue and it receives the major news headlines but isn't the drug issue so much more vital to find a solution to. People are being senselessly murdered - as opposed to the less lethal fact of illegal entry into the US to feed one's families!

Sadly, the issue on guns, which helps fuel the drug crisis (on both sides of the border), is defended under the lofty, "right to bear arms" phrase from the US Constitution. I suspect if the US's founding fathers returned to debate this issue, that in the interest of the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", they'd quickly amend the constition to protect the citizenry from the equally awful plague of *some* deadly, legal firearms. Without the current, relatively easy access to firearms (in the US) Mexico's drug cartels might not find it so easy to intimidate and murder both government troops and innocent civilians.

Daniel Robelo: Mexico's Presidents Are Considering Legalizing Drugs. Will the U.S. Join the Debate?
I see that you find the answer in legalizing drugs and gun control. No mention of closing the border. Wouldn't that correct ALL these issues?

I don't understand how you could be for legalizing drugs after all the years of fighting the tobacco industry. Maybe tobacco isn't your drug of choice. And maybe we should legalize bank robbery for those who need to feed their family.

Do you understand why the constitution guarantees our right to bear arms? It assures us that an oppressive gov't can't control us. And when the gov't can't or won't protect us we have the right to protect ourselves.

You may not see the value in all the freedoms we have but someday you will wakeup and see those that have already been taken from us.

Why would you not blame those that sell drugs and buy guns? It is a store ownwers fault if someone shoplifts from them?

Closing the borders...as other countries do...solves the issues for both sides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 08:01 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,515,932 times
Reputation: 22472
Calderon is a globalist, an internationalist and that's his real agenda. A government should focus on solving the problems inside it's own country and stop worrying about everyone else.

Just like it's a mistake for the USA to try to solve the problems of Iraq.

The problem of cross-border crime and trafficking of weapons, drugs, humans is to take control of the border back from the criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2010, 08:03 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,515,932 times
Reputation: 22472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isitmeorarethingsnuts? View Post
If Mexico really wants to end the drug sales and arms problem then why wouldn't he be trying to close the border. Well, we all know the answer to that is the money coming in from the U.S. It's unbelievable that he can put the blame of these problems on the U.S. even to the point of suggesting we change our gun control laws. He advises his nationals to come here and take our services. Why would illegals not be welcome to come here, take what we offer our citizens, and suggest we change our laws? Hipocritical...and that's the nice word!

Mexico could enforce her border as easily as the US but they would lose the money. That's more important than the people of their own country. I hope you aren't buying that garbage.
Yes - and why isn't he working to legalize every sort of gun and weapon in his own country? If he were at all consistent, he would agree that keeping guns and AK47's illegal is only making it necessary for the cartels to smuggle them in over the border. Now apparently they're smuggling in grenades - so maybe to take control from the smugglers, make grenades legal and readily available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2010, 09:50 AM
 
972 posts, read 3,917,089 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Yes - and why isn't he working to legalize every sort of gun and weapon in his own country? If he were at all consistent, he would agree that keeping guns and AK47's illegal is only making it necessary for the cartels to smuggle them in over the border. Now apparently they're smuggling in grenades - so maybe to take control from the smugglers, make grenades legal and readily available.

So I guess you will agree that Mexico stop fighting drug cartels.

That any drug that comes to Mexico from Colombia pass without any problem to the United States.

Ultimately, at this moment is in Mexico drug war that the U.S. government request.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2010, 09:51 AM
 
972 posts, read 3,917,089 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Calderon is a globalist, an internationalist and that's his real agenda. A government should focus on solving the problems inside it's own country and stop worrying about everyone else.

Just like it's a mistake for the USA to try to solve the problems of Iraq.

The problem of cross-border crime and trafficking of weapons, drugs, humans is to take control of the border back from the criminals.
But USA doesnt have control of their borders. The drugs, criminals, terrorists and illegal workers still enter to USA. How you can explain that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2010, 11:35 AM
 
Location: The world, where will fate take me this time?
3,162 posts, read 11,414,090 times
Reputation: 1463
Being a sovereign country the US has every right to sold high caliber and lethal guns legally, so do we to legalize every single drug available and we should do it, let Americans handle their drug problem themselves as they see fit, we should do the same with our problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2010, 06:41 PM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,515,932 times
Reputation: 22472
Quote:
Originally Posted by el_inombrable View Post
So I guess you will agree that Mexico stop fighting drug cartels.

That any drug that comes to Mexico from Colombia pass without any problem to the United States.

Ultimately, at this moment is in Mexico drug war that the U.S. government request.
I agree that Mexico can do whatever it wants as far as it's own drug legalization. I am against the country of one country mandating the laws of other countries - in fact that's what I think countries are for - a group of people with it's own laws and culture and language - all adapted for that group of people.

The Netherlands legalized drugs - and it's not our problem whatever happens there, and the same can go for Mexico. It should help with border violence if the cartels don't have the overhead of drug mules and paying corrupt officials to transport drugs over the border, instead they can distribute them in Mexico - the cost of the drugs could be cheaper for the people of Mexico because it would all be legal.

As far as any drug from Mexico coming from Colombia to the USA - no to that because the USA would still have drug laws and border enforcement. If Mexico wants to import any substance at all, no matter how addictive, how dangerous for it's people - that's it's sovereign right, but it does not have the right to poison the American people or cross every highly addictive toxic substance over a border with impunity in order to destroy the lives of Americans - unless that's the way the Americans would want it - I don't believe most Americans want this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Mexico

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top