If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP)   Tuesday: Masked gunmen blocked traffic in a Mexican coastal city and dumped the bodies of 35 slaying victims as horrified motorists watched   (hosted.ap.org) divider line 145
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

13325 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Sep 2011 at 12:40 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



145 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-21 05:32:35 AM  

hardinparamedic: namatad: hardinparamedic: I sound fat: 35 THOUSAND drug deaths in this war?

Its a good thing weve decided to make making yourself feel good illegal.

Of course. That's it. The disease of drug addiction does not have societal harm and costs, and hard drugs don't do life-long damage to the user and his surrounding community.

I'm so glad it's so black and white.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
thank you for playing troll
0/10

Troll? Hardly.
You're saying that:

1)Methamphetamines
2)Cocaine and Cocaine derivatives
3)Heroin
4)Abused Prescription Drugs

Have no lasting individual, community or societal harm? And that we, as a society, would not have to bear the cost for those who become addicted to these substances?

Maybe you should check out Somalia. I hear it's the Libertarian paradise you people seek.


Lets just get this clear and out of the way...

People are going to abuse drugs. They abuse alcohol, they abuse pain killers, they abuse Xanax. These individuals do not reflect the majority of people or users. Lets break this down into specifics though:

Methamphetamine

D-Amphetamine salts are THE most commonly prescribed drug in America. They are used to treat ADHD and are generally considered beneficial 'study drugs'. In proper synthesis and delivery such as Adderall, these are absurdly useful for IMPROVING YOUR LIFE.

The methyl group present in the configuration adds a hallucinogenic property but the sought 'high' can largely be achieved without it. Properly synthesized (as in not in Billy-Bob's horse trailer) and delivered, this product poses virtually no harm to society or any major adverse health risks. There is a minor psychological addiction factor and a small set of withdrawals from longterm use. It's nothing compared to something like alcohol which can kill you from the withdrawal symptoms though.

Cocaine

One of the most commonly used drugs by medicine, this drug is actually relatively safe. It runs an elevated risk for abuse (above alcohol but below tobacco) and provides numerous neurological benefits. The physical side effects which in recreational doses are limited almost entirely to consequences of ingestion method. Ultra high purity cocaine used once per week is only dangerous to those with high blood pressure and per-existing heart conditions (in other words the people who shouldn't ride roller-coasters).

Heroin

This drug in impure forms, ingested through injection, is extremely dangerous because of the difficulty of determining dose. In ultra pure forms ingested in small quantity by methods similar to cocaine, the risk of overdose vanishes almost altogether. Physical dependency risk is extremely high with this substance because it discourages the body from producing natural pain killers. High dose recreational administration would have to be restricted to a qualified facility as bi-monthly. Smaller recreational doses would need to be limited to bi-weekly. Any subsequent symptoms indicating risk for dependency would have to be considered for any further authorization of participation, withdrawals treated with MDMA or a blend of Cocaine and LSD.

Abused Prescription Drugs

In America, the most commonly abused drugs today ARE prescription. There are indeed consequences to their abuse and unfortunate outcomes. Xanax, for example, is nearly as addictive as Heroin after several months of persistent use. The withdrawal symptoms are debilitating. Prescription pain medication like Oxycontin is no different. Under a comprehensive dual status of recreational and medicinal though, it would be far easy to monitor risk of dependency and abuse. Far easier than it is today, in fact.

The scope of negative impact on society caused by these drugs (ignoring that amphetamines and cocaine actually bolster productivity) without the associated crime is insignificant. A small percentage of the population will develop addiction problems as they do with alcohol and tobacco. The majority will adhere to responsible drug use policy. If not for their own safety, then to ensure they continue to have access to mind-blowing good sex on the weekends.
 
2011-09-21 05:56:10 AM  

hardinparamedic: The_Terminator: Sorry I was late; the Zetas were busy dumping dead bodies again.

I wish they'd do it late at night like the other more civilized cartels.

But hey, the real "Threat to America(TM)" is in Pakistan! If we don't fight them in Iraq, we'll fight em' here, right?

fark these people. They're terrorists with the very nature of the word. Why are we in Iraq and Afganistan, again? We need to let loose a few groups of Special Operators in Mexico, let them do to the Zetas and their buddies what they did with the Search Bloc and (unofficially) with Los Pepes to the Medelin and Cali Cartels.

Maybe a few high ranking Zetas with their heads on poles and skins flayed open in a blood eagle would make them change their mind.

/More people have died in the last 10 years in the Border area than died on 9/11.
//These people are no better than human trash, and deserve to be treated as such. Disposed of with a 7.62mm in the brainpan.


We created the problem (provided military training to the original Zetas group), only fitting that we should clean it up. However, they've taken spec ops to levels that we're not publicly able to acknowledge. So, that puts a damper on things. RoE, etc.
 
2011-09-21 06:31:39 AM  
Shijjiri Claims:D-Amphetamine salts are THE most commonly prescribed drug in America. They are used to treat ADHD and are generally considered beneficial 'study drugs'. In proper synthesis and delivery such as Adderall, these are absurdly useful for IMPROVING YOUR LIFE.

The methyl group present in the configuration adds a hallucinogenic property but the sought 'high' can largely be achieved without it. Properly synthesized (as in not in Billy-Bob's horse trailer) and delivered, this product poses virtually no harm to society or any major adverse health risks. There is a minor psychological addiction factor and a small set of withdrawals from longterm use. It's nothing compared to something like alcohol which can kill you from the withdrawal symptoms though.


Research Says: Abuse of methamphetamines and amphetamines, outside of pharmacological indications for medical treatment, causes life-long harm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21194370

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20849327

"Methamphetamine is highly physiologically addictive, and has life-long effects."

Argumentum ad Ignoratum and Half Truth.

shijjiri claims: One of the most commonly used drugs by medicine, this drug is actually relatively safe. It runs an elevated risk for abuse (above alcohol but below tobacco) and provides numerous neurological benefits. The physical side effects which in recreational doses are limited almost entirely to consequences of ingestion method. Ultra high purity cocaine used once per week is only dangerous to those with high blood pressure and per-existing heart conditions (in other words the people who shouldn't ride roller-coasters).

Cocaine is not a common drug used in medicine - literally it's only use in modern medical treatment is to control severe nosebleeds by vasoconstriction.

Research Says:
http://www.nida.nih.gov/PDF/RRCocaine.pdf

Cocaine is one of the most addictive substances abused. In addition, they have a higher rate of STD/HIV infection, heart disease, stroke, renal failure, and dementia with long term abuse, among other issues. In fact, their mortality rates are nearly 8.4 times higher than the general population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21831178

Again. Half Truths and Blatent Lies.

shijjiri claims:
This drug in impure forms, ingested through injection, is extremely dangerous because of the difficulty of determining dose. In ultra pure forms ingested in small quantity by methods similar to cocaine, the risk of overdose vanishes almost altogether. Physical dependency risk is extremely high with this substance because it discourages the body from producing natural pain killers. High dose recreational administration would have to be restricted to a qualified facility as bi-monthly. Smaller recreational doses would need to be limited to bi-weekly. Any subsequent symptoms indicating risk for dependency would have to be considered for any further authorization of participation, withdrawals treated with MDMA or a blend of Cocaine and LSD.

Research Says:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21453192

RESULTS: Adults who at baseline reported lifetime heroin use were at significantly higher risk of all-cause death over the follow-up period (hazard rate ratio or HR=2.02; 95% confidence interval or CI 1.26-3.23), compared with those who did not report using drugs from any of the five classes, even after adjusting for age, sex, race, education, marital status, cigarette smoking status, and alcohol use status. Those who at baseline reported lifetime cocaine (no heroin) use had a significantly higher rate of death associated with human immunodeficiency virus diseases over the follow-up period than nonusers of drugs from any of the five classes. Several limitations of the analysis are discussed.


Also, on your claim that heroin dependance should be treated with Ectasy and Cocaine. That sounds like utter bullshiat, considering modern treatment regiments focus on Opioid receptor competitive antagonists.

The scope of negative impact on society caused by these drugs (ignoring that amphetamines and cocaine actually bolster productivity) without the associated crime is insignificant. A small percentage of the population will develop addiction problems as they do with alcohol and tobacco. The majority will adhere to responsible drug use policy. If not for their own safety, then to ensure they continue to have access to mind-blowing good sex on the weekends.


Please stop cuting and pasting bullshiat from Erowid.org. While it's true that there are a small group of functional drug users of these substances out there, the majority of users WILL become addicted based on what science knows about the pharmacology and addiction potential of Meth and Cocaine. In addition, these substances have horrendous, serious risks beyond anything which you choose to acknowledge. You are falsely, using Red Herrings, Argumentum ad Ignoratum, Half Truths, and blatent lies, painting these substances as relatively harmless: They aren't.

And Mind blowing sex? Thanks to people like you - for example - the Homosexual community is seeing a massive resurgance in drug resistant HIV strains in the clubbing scene thanks to methamphetamines in large urban areas.
 
2011-09-21 06:43:51 AM  
Might've prevented the entire incident.


extra.mdc.mo.gov
 
2011-09-21 07:11:01 AM  
Mexicans are wonderful people, let's have open borders and use taxpayer money to feed and clothe them and send them to college!

Dumbass libs.
 
2011-09-21 08:43:55 AM  

Thunderpipes: Mexicans are wonderful people, let's have open borders and use taxpayer money to feed and clothe them and send them to college!

Dumbass libs.



0/10
 
2011-09-21 08:44:30 AM  
Thanks for arming them batfe. Good work killers.
 
2011-09-21 08:45:20 AM  

grinding_journalist: OgreMagi: I have one idea, but it could possibly make things work. Make Mexico a protectorate of the USA. The corrupt government is eliminated completely. We'll replace it with something (hopefully) less corrupt. We shoot all the cartel members. We help them put their country back together and start fresh. Eventually, we give them the option of becoming autonomous again, or becoming new states in the US (no more sneaking across the border for jobs). I would much rather we helped a neighbor in need than send troops to the other side of the world to help people who don't even like us.

Use American military power to turn Mexico into a US-run postwar Russia?

It's...it's so evil I can't help but like it. This is not to say it wouldn't work.


The one major problem with this is the assumption that we would be any better or less corrupt than our Mexican Counterparts. This is utterly false.

First of all, corruption is rampant down there because of the high amount of production and trafficking and production. This means its basically grand central station for the North American Drug Trade. The end result is that the cartels throw around boatloads of cash or use violence to protect their "home base." There is lots of money down there from drugs. Lots. Truck loads of it even. If anything I would say US officials would be easier to bribe and less likely to fight because they don't have personal ties to Mexico. A Mexican has close family, friends, national pride, etc that could motivate him to stand up to the cartels and attempt to make Mexico a better place. The US official has a the theory that solving the problem there should help in the US, but otherwise possesses no strong personal ties. You put both under threat of death and that theory the US official clings too starts looking pretty thin compared to the wad of cash offered you by the men with guns threatening to kill you, rape your wife, and cut your children up into pieces.

Mexico is corrupt because its geographical location and the vast amounts of money involved, not because the Mexicans are Mexicans.
 
2011-09-21 08:49:57 AM  
Can we please, please just annex Mexico? Everybody wins.
1) Mexico - Increased security, higher accountability, increased minimum wage, greater access to services and educational opportunities, removal of drugs, at least to central America.
2) US - increased tax base, construction boom (bringing buildings up to code), general economic boom (teachers, police officers, engineers, IT professionals, etc.), easier access to tourist destinations and increased security while there, increased revenue from foreign tourism, Tequila!
 
2011-09-21 08:54:18 AM  
35 dead and no one hurt
 
2011-09-21 08:55:51 AM  

hardinparamedic: Shijjiri Claims:


*Sigh* Okay, lets get the chart...

upload.wikimedia.org
A rational scale to assess the harm of drugs. Data source is the March 24, 2007 article: Nutt, David, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore. "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse" The Lancet 2007; 369:1047-1053. (PMID 17382831; doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4) (new window)

Methamphetamine, like amphetamine, does carry the risk of psychological addiction. It's similar to severe caffeine addiction with a consistent daily dose of a legal prescription quantity for any amphetamine. The D-Amphetamine salt combo of Adderall does slowly alter brain chemistry. It does so in a fashion that may eventually relieve dependency on the drug to correct focus disorder.

I did not advocate Methamphetamine specifically and suggested that it would be best addressed if not served for recreational use as methamphetamine but instead a D-Amphetamine salt combo which, in general, provides the same 'up'. It should be noted that if severely abused, like ANY DRUG (including tobacco or nicotine), THERE ARE INDEED LIFE LONG NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS.

Cocaine
The practical application of sodium channel blockers in Procaine, Xylocaine, Prilocaine pursue the same primary metabolic pathway for processing in the body. Unlike cocaine, these related but commonly used medicines do not entirely penetrate the blood brain barrier or cause the same rewarding neurological effects. if you are like myself however, you may be resistant to Xylocaine, which means you get articaine. This contains *drumroll* esters of benzoic acids 3-(p-Fluorobenzoyloxy) tropane and cocaine. The properties of the two products are as a result, remarkably similar, where articaine is primarily a loss in potency with a different method of delivery.

Regarding your reference, I don't believe you read it all that clearly. The sample group tracking heroin and cocaine users showed a post adjustment increase but failed to qualify important notatons about the sample demographic. When you're reviewing sample selections from Chile 1998 but adjusting your curve to fit American fitness models, you are doing what we would call "bad science". Furthermore, when your adjustment curve analysis for factors of age, sex, race, education, marital status, cigarette smoking status, and alcohol use status are derived from expectations set by a 12th grade class in Missouri, you might as well just spit in the face of any real research in the field while you push them aside to get your grant money.

To be fair though, they did not attempt to draw ANY finite conclusion from this practical joke of a paper. They simply reverted to "needs more data".

Heroin

I said either MDMA (which is not the combination drug Ecstasy) AND/OR LSD+Cocaine. I did not get into specifics because I didn't think I'd have an audience for it, but since you want to play Mr. D.A.R.E here, I'll bite.

Diacetylmorphine in its unadulterated form does not actually have very many direct side effects beyond addiction and constipation (Merck Manual of Home Health Handbook - 2nd edition, 2003, p. 2097) but is often far more dangerous in cut form which appears on the streets due to toxicity of common elements with which it is cut. A good number of deaths from heroin ingestion are actually related to an allergic reaction quinine, a common ingredient used when cutting heroin. (new window)

Treating dependency PROPERLY does not involve TORTURING THE PATIENCE. Treating an overdose with naloxone is one thing, but treating withdrawal symptoms where the patient has likely suffered a reduced number of μ-opioid receptors available AND the production of opioid peptides means that someone is in terrible pain and anxiety. By introducing MDMA or LSD to stimulate the stimulating the serotonergic nerve, pain is rapidly reduced. LSD further propels the stimuli of active receptors so an introduction of cocaine to provide dopamine and β-endorphin means that the body can relieve pain and anxiety from the withdrawal symptoms even if suffering from reduced sensitivity of δ- and κ-opioid.

Quoting Erowid.org, claims without citation, direct insults and character defamation

First, let me be clear that I am not familiar with Erowid.org or quoting them. I have no agenda or bias on the topic; just personal curiosity and extensive experience.

Next, your claim with regard to cocaine and heroin being addictive to the majority of recreational users is totally unfounded. I will certainly admit, did admit, acknowledged and addressed, that opioid addiction is a higher risk. Yet the vast majority of users who consume Oxycontin or receive morphine do not become addicted.

With regard to cocaine (not crack), I'm uncertain if you've realized but it's an incredibly popular recreational drug among professionals with well paying jobs that don't drug screen. You may not have observed an epidemic among that demographic because there isn't one. What you will notice is that annual production of cocaine is about 600 tonnes or 600,000,000 grams (United Nations (June 2010). World Drug Report 2010. United Nations Publications. p. 77. ISBN 978-92-1-148256-0). In order to justify that rate of consumption there would need to be approximately 12,000,000 recreational users consuming 2 grams per week, every week of the year. Given that cost and risk of overdose is a major limiting factor per capita of users that could potentially offset that curve, it does not seem unreasonable for me to say that in the US alone there are no fewer than 4,000,000 weekly recreational users. No significant number of them can be represented as forming a severe dependency.

And Mind blowing sex? Thanks to people like you - for example - the Homosexual community is seeing a massive resurgance in drug resistant HIV strains in the clubbing scene thanks to methamphetamines in large urban areas. [citation needed]

arch.413chan.net

Although I am uncertain why you believe heterosexuals in monogamous relationships are responsible for this, you can take comfort that absolutely none of what you've is even remotely true (for future reference, amphetamines make it very difficult to get an erection).

Also, yes. Mind blowing sex.

/Education AND mind blowing sex
/u jelly?
 
2011-09-21 09:01:12 AM  

Tomahawk513: Can we please, please just annex Mexico? Everybody wins.
1) Mexico - Increased security, higher accountability, increased minimum wage, greater access to services and educational opportunities, removal of drugs, at least to central America.
2) US - increased tax base, construction boom (bringing buildings up to code), general economic boom (teachers, police officers, engineers, IT professionals, etc.), easier access to tourist destinations and increased security while there, increased revenue from foreign tourism, Tequila!


You think Mexico has a large population of people that would actually earn enough to pay taxes? Would by 95% of them that pay absolutely no taxes. But, you would get at least 95% of them to vote Democrat. Win for you, loss for country.
 
2011-09-21 09:07:06 AM  
I'm so glad the Obama administration has decided to only deport or imprison those illegals who have been convicted of a crime.

I sleep very well at night.
 
2011-09-21 09:10:34 AM  

grinding_journalist: They haven't legalized these narcotics in Mexico yet, why exactly?

Seems like decriminalization, taxation, and regulation would take away a large part of the motivation behind these attacks/killings/etc. I'm certainly not saying it would instantly fix everything overnight, but how could it not be an improvement?


A cynical man might observe there's more money to be made in fighting a war than in winning a war these days.
 
2011-09-21 09:12:48 AM  
Mr. President, it's the southern border, stoopit. Not far flung, stone-aged places on the other side of the planet, our troops need to be at.
 
2011-09-21 09:13:47 AM  

Wicked Chinchilla: grinding_journalist: OgreMagi: I have one idea, but it could possibly make things work. Make Mexico a protectorate of the USA. The corrupt government is eliminated completely. We'll replace it with something (hopefully) less corrupt. We shoot all the cartel members. We help them put their country back together and start fresh. Eventually, we give them the option of becoming autonomous again, or becoming new states in the US (no more sneaking across the border for jobs). I would much rather we helped a neighbor in need than send troops to the other side of the world to help people who don't even like us.

Use American military power to turn Mexico into a US-run postwar Russia?

It's...it's so evil I can't help but like it. This is not to say it wouldn't work.

The one major problem with this is the assumption that we would be any better or less corrupt than our Mexican Counterparts. This is utterly false.

First of all, corruption is rampant down there because of the high amount of production and trafficking and production. This means its basically grand central station for the North American Drug Trade. The end result is that the cartels throw around boatloads of cash or use violence to protect their "home base." There is lots of money down there from drugs. Lots. Truck loads of it even. If anything I would say US officials would be easier to bribe and less likely to fight because they don't have personal ties to Mexico. A Mexican has close family, friends, national pride, etc that could motivate him to stand up to the cartels and attempt to make Mexico a better place. The US official has a the theory that solving the problem there should help in the US, but otherwise possesses no strong personal ties. You put both under threat of death and that theory the US official clings too starts looking pretty thin compared to the wad of cash offered you by the men with guns threatening to kill you, rape your wife, and cut your children up into pieces.

Mexico is corrupt because its geographical location and the vast amounts of money involved, not because the Mexicans are Mexicans.


Blaming America for creating corruption in Mexico is like blaming identity thieves for the creation of bank fraud.

One of the reason the cartels took hold in Mexico was the corruption that has been present in Mexico since its creation.

Of course, if every pot-head and meth-head decided they were going to go clean and sober overnight, the cartels would see an enormous downturn in cash flow. But they would recover because the same country--Mexico-- that allowed them to develop would help them recover because some of the money the cartels bring in is kicked up to others in Mexico.
 
2011-09-21 09:20:28 AM  

namatad: HINT OTHER COUNTRIES
legalize it


the CIA doesn't like a decrease in profits.
 
2011-09-21 09:27:23 AM  
Yay! Another victory for the unconstitutional war on drugs!!! Yay!
 
2011-09-21 09:35:28 AM  
It's the Mexican way. Coming soon to a location near you.
 
2011-09-21 09:52:35 AM  
So the moral of this story is buy drugs from Canada instead?
 
2011-09-21 09:55:38 AM  
It's pretty adorable that some simpletons think that if we legalized drugs the cartels would just close up shop and go home and sulk.
 
2011-09-21 10:11:42 AM  
I had Snu Snu Quote 2011-09-21 09:55:38 AM
It's pretty adorable that some simpletons think that if we legalized drugs the cartels would just close up shop and go home and sulk.



I wouldn't bother arguing with those guys. The legalize it crowd on Fark are as hardcore in the belief in their "solution" as the fundies are in their belief that the second coming of Christ is happening next week.

Interesting article in Harpers (I believe) about a Mexican drug cartel hitman. Guy was part of a police unit that did a ton of kidnappings and professional hits on behalf of whatever cartel. Chilling reading.

http://variousenthusiasms.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/the-sicario-a-juar e z-hit-man-speaks-by-charles-bowden-harpers/
 
2011-09-21 10:40:36 AM  
You know. It would be cheaper for the Mexican or American military to pay a bounty on the heads of these guys then it would to let the carnage continue. How hard would it be for guys with the right tools, money and time to hunt these f*ckers down and kill all of them. It appears to be working well in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Why not employ the same tactics against these guys. Hell, offer up rewards for intelligence to find them and eliminate them. If I had the money, I'd offer the bounty myself. You can't apply the regular rules of law when dealing with these assholes. Treat them the way the Russians treat the Chechnyans. It would end really quickly.
 
2011-09-21 10:49:35 AM  

I had Snu Snu: It's pretty adorable that some simpletons think that if we legalized drugs the cartels would just close up shop and go home and sulk.


Yes, we should continue to do it YOUR way...you know, train the local Mexican PDs in military tactics, give them military hardware, then act all surprised when the officers go work for the cartels for a five-fold pay hike, taking their gear with them.

You DO know the definition of insanity, right?
 
2011-09-21 11:00:34 AM  

I had Snu Snu: It's pretty adorable that some simpletons think that if we legalized drugs the cartels would just close up shop and go home and sulk.


Well, they probably wouldn't run around gunning down "innocent" drug addicts either. They'd just start legally forcing people to get addicted by adding it to food and drink supplies, and once they had a monopoly, start charging ridiculous prices until the addicts who can no longer survive without the drugs start the class war the socialists have been jonesing for since Marx published his first manifesto.

/in short, a win-win for everybody but The Man
//of course, since everybody is The Man to somebody... ah, forget it and smoke another bowl
 
2011-09-21 11:07:15 AM  

PunGent: You DO know the definition of insanity, right?


If at first you don't succeed just give up?
 
2011-09-21 11:09:47 AM  
The state attorney for the state of Veracruz declared that those killed were the prisioners that recently escaped a few days ago. Without a national database or computer system to track fingerprints authorities came to this conclusion at supersonic speeds!! Specially when they are trying to id tortured and disfigured bodies!

Makes you wonder what other things they might discover in the next few hours!!

/I feel for the people of Mexico that have to put up with this @#@$#$
 
2011-09-21 11:12:35 AM  

I had Snu Snu: It's pretty adorable that some simpletons think that if we legalized drugs the cartels would just close up shop and go home and sulk.


You make a valid point, but when they lose their money supply and raison d'etre, they will not be as violent.

Look at the other failed prohibition experiment we had here in the US. When alcohol was illegal the mafia went around shooting up cities with tommy guns. When prohibition was lifted, they turned to unions and started running all of the union organizations in the country.

Now I hate unions as much as the next red-blooded American, but I don't see them as being quite as violent as the tommy-gun slinging mobsters of yester year.

So you are right, these cartels aren't just going to hug is out and disband, but when you remove their ability to make money via prohibited markets, they will no longer have the need to use violence as their only means of getting ahead.
 
2011-09-21 11:42:53 AM  

shijjiri: If you hate what you see happening here, remember where the blame falls. There is no supply without demand. If recreational drug use was legal and regulated in America, regulated business would supply the demand. The twisted murders of these cartels would cease to exist, just like their profits. The harmless recreational drug users would just that, not criminals that eat away your tax dollars.


Yes, and suddenly criminals making money unethically will find Jesus and rainbows and fairy dust for everyone. They will walk away from their ill gotten gains and be happy returning to a life of poverty as Jesus commanded.
 
2011-09-21 11:55:09 AM  

hardinparamedic: The_Terminator: Sorry I was late; the Zetas were busy dumping dead bodies again.

I wish they'd do it late at night like the other more civilized cartels.

But hey, the real "Threat to America(TM)" is in Pakistan! If we don't fight them in Iraq, we'll fight em' here, right?

fark these people. They're terrorists with the very nature of the word. Why are we in Iraq and Afganistan, again? We need to let loose a few groups of Special Operators in Mexico, let them do to the Zetas and their buddies what they did with the Search Bloc and (unofficially) with Los Pepes to the Medelin and Cali Cartels.

Maybe a few high ranking Zetas with their heads on poles and skins flayed open in a blood eagle would make them change their mind.

/More people have died in the last 10 years in the Border area than died on 9/11.
//These people are no better than human trash, and deserve to be treated as such. Disposed of with a 7.62mm in the brainpan.


Or we could, you know, legalize drugs and let Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol take over their markets. Violence would go down, government revenues (taxes on said drugs) would go up, government expenses (hunting down, arresting, trying, and jailing random drug users would be eliminated).
 
2011-09-21 11:55:57 AM  

trappedspirit: shijjiri: If you hate what you see happening here, remember where the blame falls. There is no supply without demand. If recreational drug use was legal and regulated in America, regulated business would supply the demand. The twisted murders of these cartels would cease to exist, just like their profits. The harmless recreational drug users would just that, not criminals that eat away your tax dollars.

Yes, and suddenly criminals making money unethically will find Jesus and rainbows and fairy dust for everyone. They will walk away from their ill gotten gains and be happy returning to a life of poverty as Jesus commanded.


There would be much less profit in it. If it is not profitable to be a criminal, people wouldn't be criminals.
 
2011-09-21 12:10:52 PM  

Geotpf: Or we could, you know, legalize drugs and let Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol take over their markets. Violence would go down, government revenues (taxes on said drugs) would go up, government expenses (hunting down, arresting, trying, and jailing random drug users would be eliminated).


Because 1,000's of armed, slimy, murderous dirtbags would have no interest in maintaining that revenue stream at all costs and would just go out and buy some nice suits and clean up the corruption. Yup. The whole thing sucks dick to hell and back, and it doesn't matter who is making the money or what degree of legitimacy it's given. It'll still be about cash and guns.
 
2011-09-21 01:14:49 PM  

Soymilk: hardinparamedic: Soymilk: hardinparamedic: You're saying that:

1)Methamphetamines
2)Cocaine and Cocaine derivatives
3)Heroin
4)Abused Prescription Drugs

Have no lasting individual, community or societal harm? And that we, as a society, would not have to bear the cost for those who become addicted to these substances?

You forgot +1)Alcohol and +2)Tobacco, both are addictive and harmful and incurs cost to society, yet both are legal and taxed. Ever wonder why there are no violent international cigarette cartels?

Um, what?

Tax free cigs are huge business - they get smuggled in from overseas and sold on the black market by organized crime. It's one of the favorites of the Russian Mob, the Chicago and the New York Crime Bosses - Cigs don't attract the same heat as drugs do.

Tax free alcohol? Go up in the mountains of East Tennessee and the Carolinas. See how long you last trying to bust stillers.

But are they in the news for violent decapitations? Have they led to the near collapse of more than one country? Do mayors of major cities get assassinated over cigarette routes?


I'll go ahead and drive the bus a bit further on this one, at least for alcohol...

In Kentucky, there are literally parts of the state where intoxicating substance laws are stuck in 1920 and where prohibition is STILL in effect--of note, these tend to be in eastern Kentucky, where the two dominant religious groups (Southern Baptists and pentecostals) are dominionist teetotaler groups who have a lock on local politics.

It is not a coincidence that the same folks who are running booze from Jellico, TN and running stills are often the identical set of folks selling illicit oxycontin and setting up marijuana grow ops and meth labs in Daniel Boone National Forest.

And yes, there ARE mayors of small towns and cops who DO get killed over plans to shut all of these operations down. (Even scarier: a lot of this is ALSO tied in with the "sovereign citizen" stuff including militia groups that have been known to target state policemen, so there's a real argument that bootlegging in eastern Kentucky could be funding domestic terrorism.)

Just across the state lines (in TN, West-By-God Virginia and the Other Virginia) there ARE folks that still run shine, but it's not entangled with folks selling "hillbilly heroin" and running meth labs the way it is in eastern KY. They also typically DON'T have mayors and cops being shot over this stuff.

So yeah, I'm in the "legalise it and tax it" camp :D
 
2011-09-21 01:26:31 PM  
shijjiri: hardinparamedic: Shijjiri Claims:

*Sigh* Okay, lets get the chart...

[upload.wikimedia.org image 380x380]
A rational scale to assess the harm of drugs. Data source is the March 24, 2007 article: Nutt, David, Leslie A King, William Saulsbury, Colin Blakemore. "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs of potential misuse" The Lancet 2007; 369:1047-1053. (PMID 17382831; doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60464-4) (new window)

Methamphetamine, like amphetamine, does carry the risk of psychological addiction. It's similar to severe caffeine addiction with a consistent daily dose of a legal prescription quantity for any amphetamine. The D-Amphetamine salt combo of Adderall does slowly alter brain chemistry. It does so in a fashion that may eventually relieve dependency on the drug to correct focus disorder.

I did not advocate Methamphetamine specifically and suggested that it would be best addressed if not served for recreational use as methamphetamine but instead a D-Amphetamine salt combo which, in general, provides the same 'up'. It should be noted that if severely abused, like ANY DRUG (including tobacco or nicotine), THERE ARE INDEED LIFE LONG NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS.

Cocaine
The practical application of sodium channel blockers in Procaine, Xylocaine, Prilocaine pursue the same primary metabolic pathway for processing in the body. Unlike cocaine, these related but commonly used medicines do not entirely penetrate the blood brain barrier or cause the same rewarding neurological effects. if you are like myself however, you may be resistant to Xylocaine, which means you get articaine. This contains *drumroll* esters of benzoic acids 3-(p-Fluorobenzoyloxy) tropane and cocaine. The properties of the two products are as a result, remarkably similar, where articaine is primarily a loss in potency with a different method of delivery.

Regarding your reference, I don't believe you read it all that clearly. The sample group tracking heroin and cocaine users showed a post adjustment increase but failed to qualify important notatons about the sample demographic. When you're reviewing sample selections from Chile 1998 but adjusting your curve to fit American fitness models, you are doing what we would call "bad science". Furthermore, when your adjustment curve analysis for factors of age, sex, race, education, marital status, cigarette smoking status, and alcohol use status are derived from expectations set by a 12th grade class in Missouri, you might as well just spit in the face of any real research in the field while you push them aside to get your grant money.

To be fair though, they did not attempt to draw ANY finite conclusion from this practical joke of a paper. They simply reverted to "needs more data".

Heroin

I said either MDMA (which is not the combination drug Ecstasy) AND/OR LSD+Cocaine. I did not get into specifics because I didn't think I'd have an audience for it, but since you want to play Mr. D.A.R.E here, I'll bite.

Diacetylmorphine in its unadulterated form does not actually have very many direct side effects beyond addiction and constipation (Merck Manual of Home Health Handbook - 2nd edition, 2003, p. 2097) but is often far more dangerous in cut form which appears on the streets due to toxicity of common elements with which it is cut. A good number of deaths from heroin ingestion are actually related to an allergic reaction quinine, a common ingredient used when cutting heroin. (new window)

Treating dependency PROPERLY does not involve TORTURING THE PATIENCE. Treating an overdose with naloxone is one thing, but treating withdrawal symptoms where the patient has likely suffered a reduced number of μ-opioid receptors available AND the production of opioid peptides means that someone is in terrible pain and anxiety. By introducing MDMA or LSD to stimulate the stimulating the serotonergic nerve, pain is rapidly reduced. LSD further propels the stimuli of active receptors so an introduction of cocaine to provide dopamine and β-endorphin means that the body can relieve pain and anxiety from the wit ...


Naloxone is old news, and a horrid choice - it throws a patient into withdraw and has a short life. The newer treatments use Suboxone, which allows the control of cravings, and prevention of the "high" associated with heroin addiction. There is no inactivation of the mu receptors. Unless you have studies of efficacy backing up your claim, it's about as worthwhile as homeopathy for cancer.

Except your personal experience belies an agenda. You grossly misstated the risks of some, while flatly denying others. You, for example, claimed that Cocaine and Methamphetamines are not addictive, which is frankly a joke. (Actually, you claimed it was only a Psychological addiction.)

Seriously, it's awesome you count yourself among the rare highly functional drug user. You're still placing yourself at massive risk, and then expecting society (insurance, medicaid/medicare, etc) to cover for your own abuse. And don't give me the crap about prescription drugs. Informed consent and treatment of an actual condition make it a totally different issue.

Also, here's your citations. Multiple ones.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/meth.htm
https://files.nyu.edu/mm181/public/Publications/6HalkitisDOUBLEEPIDEM I C.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756482/
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/aids/Meth/MethHIVMSMarticle.pdf

I mean, shiat. They've known HIV spread among the MSM population is highly influenced by drug and methamphetamine abuse for upwards of 10 years now. This is not new news.

/No. Not jealous. Practical, based on life experience.
//People like you are the reason that the Anti-Drug crowd still has ammo to keep MDMA and Pot as schedule 1.
///DARE is a lie. But yeah, keep assuming that has something to do with it.
 
2011-09-21 01:47:21 PM  

Begoggle: fjnorton: "both groups claim to be devoted to god"
So this is gods work so its ok

They must be members of the religion of peace.
What religion are most Mexicans again?


God angry when He does not get His cut.
 
2011-09-21 02:15:13 PM  

Enemabag Jones: They have scared of many journalists, and now they are going after bloggers.

Link (new window)

Zeta headquarters need to be targeted with missiles. Blow up whomever thinks power works. Send a message the violence is a problem and those using it as a tool will be killed.

I am not talking about the war on drugs here, I am not talking about legalizing drugs either way, we are past that. Mexican cartels will do whatever pays the bills.



i think i share your concern that just because these groups have gotten powerful on the drug trade doesn't mean that the absence of that trade will make them any less profitable or violent. they'll just find another source of income. they're not gonna be like "oh well, we had a good run, let's start a charity group for the victims families"

these people are scum, they don't value human life, and will continue to exploit whatever they can to maintain power. drugs are the easiest way for them to do that now, but absent that, they WILL find something else (weapons, sex, organs, kidnappings, etc). legalization is not a magical cure-all
 
2011-09-21 03:18:46 PM  

grinding_journalist: They haven't legalized these narcotics in Mexico yet, why exactly?

Seems like decriminalization, taxation, and regulation would take away a large part of the motivation behind these attacks/killings/etc. I'm certainly not saying it would instantly fix everything overnight, but how could it not be an improvement?


You are making the mistake of assuming that the government of Mexico is any less corupt than than drug lords. You have apperently never tried to open a business in Mexico.
 
2011-09-21 03:28:50 PM  

SirEattonHogg: namatad 2011-09-21 01:14:12 AM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
but everyone KNOWS that if you smoke pot you are responsible for these deaths, in part

bwhahahahahahahaha

it is funny that we have been able to convince other countries to continue supporting our completely failed drug war.

HINT OTHER COUNTRIES
legalize it
tax it
export it

TADA you solved your problem and the dumb fark americans? who cares

/my god we are a retarded race

No, that's utterly retarded advice for any foreign country. That country would be a international pariah practically overnite - who in the world would want to have relations with a govt that legitimizes domestic production and the international sale and export of products that are illegal in their respective countries? Further,,no other country would want to trade with such a state - thereby wrecking its domestic economy. And the US (or even that state's neighbors) would probably be forced to act against a country that legalized export of drugs to the US. What a stupid post.


I must respectfuly disagree.

What is Mexico's major export(other than drugs)? Its oil. And we will buy that shiat from anybody no matter how farked up they are. As far as everything else the increase in tourism will make up the difference.
 
2011-09-21 03:30:04 PM  

Geotpf: trappedspirit: shijjiri: If you hate what you see happening here, remember where the blame falls. There is no supply without demand. If recreational drug use was legal and regulated in America, regulated business would supply the demand. The twisted murders of these cartels would cease to exist, just like their profits. The harmless recreational drug users would just that, not criminals that eat away your tax dollars.

Yes, and suddenly criminals making money unethically will find Jesus and rainbows and fairy dust for everyone. They will walk away from their ill gotten gains and be happy returning to a life of poverty as Jesus commanded.

There would be much less profit in it. If it is not profitable to be a criminal, people wouldn't be criminals.


Guess what? They find other ways of making money. Like changing from drug traffic to human traffic. They gonna get paid. And now they have a nice network built up that can be switched to other enterprising ideas. Do you think the mob disappeared after prohibition ended?
 
2011-09-21 03:37:12 PM  
pdee,
You are making the mistake of assuming that the government of Mexico is any less corupt than than drug lords. You have apperently never tried to open a business in Mexico.


You are cutting to the point that Government is an exercise in power that takes a cut from citizens, businesses and corporations.

I can appreciate that the Mexican government may not tax businesses in the fairest way ever. And for some Mexicans, the Zeta's as a form of government may be less evil than whomever is in power now.

Too many people are dying. Seriously, slaughtering masses of innocents because one or two people need to be hit at that location. Killing journalists, now bloggers and hanging their corpses because they are speaking out. Mass graves in backyards.

This is getting much too sloppy.

Hit these psychopaths and their wives, their family 'in the business'.

And I repeat, this is not about the drug trade, this is about raw power and putting civility back in the business of organized crime.
 
2011-09-21 04:28:16 PM  

Hella Fark: Enemabag Jones: They have scared of many journalists, and now they are going after bloggers.

Link (new window)

Zeta headquarters need to be targeted with missiles. Blow up whomever thinks power works. Send a message the violence is a problem and those using it as a tool will be killed.

I am not talking about the war on drugs here, I am not talking about legalizing drugs either way, we are past that. Mexican cartels will do whatever pays the bills.


i think i share your concern that just because these groups have gotten powerful on the drug trade doesn't mean that the absence of that trade will make them any less profitable or violent. they'll just find another source of income. they're not gonna be like "oh well, we had a good run, let's start a charity group for the victims families"

these people are scum, they don't value human life, and will continue to exploit whatever they can to maintain power. drugs are the easiest way for them to do that now, but absent that, they WILL find something else (weapons, sex, organs, kidnappings, etc). legalization is not a magical cure-all


Yes, they've already begun to diversify: LinkLink.
 
2011-09-21 05:23:59 PM  
It is simple economics people. You can still socially shun people from doing drugs by not hiring them! Your not gonna let people put drugs in others food and not know about it because it's unacceptable and if people found out they would be sued to oblivion. There are other ways besides making it "illegal" to fight something like drugs. NO ONE WOULD WANT TO LEGITIMIZE DRUG USE! It's just the drug war is farking pointless.

And yeah wtf happened to the mob? They got considerably weaker. You attack how they actually make the profit if you want to stop such violence. They will still find ways to make money because that is what people do in all walks of life. Those other methods will be considerably less profitable than something like drugs. So yeah I'd rather say fark you guys where it hurts... meaning their primary source of income.

Other countries making us a pariah? Since when did the US suddenly get out of that definition. Most countries consider us that already.
 
2011-09-21 05:42:14 PM  

Wicked Chinchilla: Mexico is corrupt because its geographical location and the vast amounts of money involved, not because the Mexicans are Mexicans.


Um, yes it is. Their culture anyway.

They *accept* the corruption as the way things are. As a society they are pacifists, they will not fight. This allows the wolves there to run wild.

Mexican culture will have to change before this stops. Unfortunately it will take a Japan-style occupation by the USA to do that.
 
2011-09-21 09:17:51 PM  

hardinparamedic: shijjiri: hardinparamedic: Shijjiri Claims:

Hardinparamedic angry rant berating Shijjiri while ignoring facts that do not fit his beliefs.



I appreciate your concern for your fellow man with regard to beliefs you base on what you view as credible, unbiased research. If you review the actual research, the sample groups, the curves used for adjustment, you will find that much of it is nothing short of contrived.

I specifically acknowledged the physical addiction risk component of habitual heroine and cocaine. The identification of risk for psychological addiction is in reference to elevated recreational use. Yet a typical recreational user would not consume enough of the product to ever encounter these risks unless they had a genetic predisposition for addictive behavior (something that can be tested for).

The decriminalization of drugs has virtually NONE of the negative side effects you have announced in any measurable way. The decision is overall better for everyone involved (except the mafia and corrupt members of the law enforcement). Please take a moment to review the outcome in Portugal.

/Try to think of the greater good.
 
2011-09-21 11:46:23 PM  

shijjiri: The decriminalization of drugs has virtually NONE of the negative side effects you have announced in any measurable way.


I'm all for across-the-board legalization, but I gotta disagree a bit on this one. Having witnessed the effects of (pretty much) immediately available drugs on a sizable sample of folks across a duration of a couple of years, I gotta say that the incidence of irresponsible behavior was certainly higher than average, even when compared to drunk-and-stoned types. Several things may skew this, of course; the illegality itself (despite ready availability) may still promote an unconscious sense of scarcity, lack of conditioning, whatever. For whatever reason, though, I don't think the point can be argued--if there's dope there, motherfarker's prrrobably gonna smoke it. It's tough to be a responsible dope fiend, and keep being one, and keep on being one. That's just how it works. Hell, that's the farkin' point. Call it "farked up" for a reason.

It can be done though, and I totally believe people should have the freedom to give it a shot. And to commit suicide, while I'm at it, if I goddamn well please.
 
Displayed 45 of 145 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report