timujin: Yeah, here's the thing though, I'd guess about 50% of the people in the U.S. couldn't find Guatemala on a map. Add to that they have no influence on U.S. domestic or international policy and the people who do have no interest in listening to them and I see this going absolutely nowhere.

/where you goin'? NOWHERE!

Well, as a Guatemalan, I generally agree with you. However, Guatemala is one of the main corridors for any drug transport not originating in Mexico (Colombia, Nicaragua, etc.). So, them saying "Eh, who cares about regulating drug trafficking anymore" would impact the drug business in the US.

Aarontology: Don't they know the way to fight drugs is to enact draconian sentencing, give the police paramilitary powers with no oversight,

See, they tried this during the Guatemalan Civil War to a point and it didn't turn out well.

timujin: I Have The Touch of a Shocked Monkey: timujin: Yeah, here's the thing though, I'd guess about 50% of the people in the U.S. couldn't find Guatemala on a map. Add to that they have no influence on U.S. domestic or international policy and the people who do have no interest in listening to them and I see this going absolutely nowhere.

/where you goin'? NOWHERE!

Well, as a Guatemalan, I generally agree with you. However, Guatemala is one of the main corridors for any drug transport not originating in Mexico (Colombia, Nicaragua, etc.). So, them saying "Eh, who cares about regulating drug trafficking anymore" would impact the drug business in the US.

How do the drugs get from there to here? Boat? If it's overland, won't they still have to deal with Mexican authorities before it gets here. But, yeah, it does mean that drug traffickers will have an easier time..

I've heard they use both manners. By sea, many traffickers port at Puerto San Jose from what I've heard before heading for Mexico, so Guatemala is used by land and sea, one could say.

Admittedly, this is mostly hearsay, but Guatemala is known for being essential to Central American drug trade. Hell, the guy Molina ran against for the Presidency, Manuel Baldizon, was rumored to have run a drug plantation up in Peten.

timujin: /Damn, people, look to Portugal ^for the answer.

Came here to say this.

All the problems with drugs in this country would go away if we would just start beheading drug users and suppliers.

"Yeah, right. And make us give up our kickass toys? I don't think you've thought about... the children."

Serious Black: All the problems with drugs in this country would go away if we would just start beheading drug users and suppliers.

And we could reduce the level of unemployment at the same time too!

/Profit!
// Where is my sarcasm font?

This could have been a great troll headline, something like "American President backs decriminalization of drugs". But this is what we get. *sigh*

Serious Black: All the problems with drugs in this country would go away if we would just start beheading drug users and suppliers.

You're too weak on crime! What we clearly need to do is disembowel them while still alive (ala Braveheart), grind their remains into a fine paste, then do the same to all their family, friends, and neighbors, all while Internet Tough Guys watch live feeds while masturbating.

.

Fabric_Man 2012-04-10 03:32:17 PM

Serious Black: All the problems with drugs in this country would go away if we would just start beheading drug users and suppliers.

You're too weak on crime! What we clearly need to do is disembowel them while still alive (ala Braveheart), grind their remains into a fine paste,

It's so simple. I permit so I can control.

Prohibition always fails, because you only have the illusion of control.

Fabric_Man: Serious Black: All the problems with drugs in this country would go away if we would just start beheading drug users and suppliers.

You're too weak on crime! What we clearly need to do is disembowel them while still alive (ala Braveheart), grind their remains into a fine paste, then do the same to all their family, friends, and neighbors, all while Internet Tough Guys watch live feeds while masturbating.

Does it have to be masturbating? I'd rather watch at the same time as raping Dominican boys while snorting Oxycontin.

They've already decriminalized small (personal) amounts of all drugs across Europe. I'm at a loss for exactly which countries, but I know Spain has.

/it's a war on minorities to replace outlawed slave labor with prison labor
//the stock market would collapse if drugs were legalized

meat0918: Prohibition always fails, because you only have the illusion of control.

some wars are not meant to be won.

The 'War on (some) Drugs' allowed police stations across the country to receive S.W.A.T. funding, armored vehicles, we now have SCOTUS authorizing no-knock raids because Suzy might flush her 10 POUND BRICK of HEROIN should someone knock politely on her door.

According to them.

Legalize It: .

The U.S. isn't and has never been the friend of the people of Central America. It is past time that these individual nations look to solve immediate problems in their own interest and put the onus on the United States to follow suit.

/De Guatemala a Guate-peor.

It's so odd seeing anyone in a position of authority expression a rational opinion on this subject. "Health issue" is exactly the way to describe it.

Drug addiction is a physical/psychological (which is really just another physical issue that we don't entirely understand the precise operation of yet) issue. It is manageable, and a healthy society takes steps to engage addicts in treatment and management. The dichotomy of denial and punishment that has been hemispheric and international policy for the past century has been worse than a failure; like alcohol Prohibition, the policy of zero tolerance has only made addicts criminals and made criminals rich.

Time to topple this rotting edifice and replace it with something that works. Reduce the harm: honestly explain the effects of the available substances, offer treatment and management programs to those who become addicted, refrain from punishing those who use substances in moderation, and care for those who become addicted to the most powerful substances. Drug addiction shouldn't be a crime, or a death sentence.

Legalize It: .

Hermes: Legalize it!
Amy: We're talking about robosexual marriage...
Hermes: We're talkin' about a lot of things.

Marijuana will never be legal.

1) Governments do not admit mistakes. Policy decisions made on a national level are held on to no matter how destructive they wind up being. There are some notable exceptions to this in US history -- prohibition, e.g. -- but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. The war on drugs and terror will never be reconsidered, or their ill effects given any official weight by those currently in power.

2) Profit. There are vast amounts of government moneys involved in drug prohibition, and the recipients of these funds will fight -- literally -- to the death to keep them flowing. Private prisons, drug rehabilitation centers, anti-drug task forces, anti-drug propaganda organizations, military task forces, etc., etc. Those billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs will not be let go of lightly.

3) Power. The war on drugs gives justifications for increased governmental powers of the population. Power, once given, is rarely given up without bloodshed. The more power given, the less likely a government is to voluntarily give up that power. The prohibition of marijuana (and other drugs) gives the government vast powers. They will not give up those powers without a struggle. (And by "struggle", I mean "revolution.")

Of course marijuana should be legal. I do not believe it will ever happen in America, though, no matter how high the human or financial costs are.

"I think it is very clear that the war that has been staged against drug trafficking in the past 40 years has not had the fruits that we expected"

If only there had been some sort of similar attempt to ban a commonly consumed narcotic in recent history. Some sort of prohibition on the production and sale of some substance so you could look at how the theory played out in practice soupy would know what to expect.

If only...

Nadie_AZ: illegal.tender: Marijuana will never be legal.

Um ... see the 18th and 21st amendments, please.

Why couldn't they just prohibit alcohol under the interstate commerce clause?

That's how they prohibit marijuana now.

Oh yeah, because the interstate commerce clause has changed meaning since then.

Nadie_AZ: illegal.tender: Marijuana will never be legal.

Um ... see the 18th and 21st amendments, please.

I am well aware of that, and mentioned prohibition in my post. But modern America is different from early 20th century America in some significant ways, most importantly the establishment of the national security state and its supporting apparatus. There was no CIA/NSA/DEA during prohibition, pushing for ever broader surveillance powers and adding their voices to the debate. The national security apparatus very much likes drug prohibition: it gives them cause to expand their powers.

And they have very powerful voices within the government.

illegal.tender: Of course marijuana should be legal. I do not believe it will ever happen in America, though, no matter how high the human or financial costs are.

I think you underestimate the power of the electorate to get what it wants.
The problem is that not enough people want it yet.

What legalization supporters need to do is to organize and work on their message.
Appeal to the conservatives boot-strappyness by reminding them that freedom means having the right to make choices.
Convince "think of the children" types that you are thinking of the children, because you plan to spend the money wasted on firepower and incarceration towards prevention and education.
Explain to the Religious types that alot of those men sitting in jail for meaningless drug chargers are fathers and brothers that could be saved if they were still with their families and going to church, rather than being forced to hold company with murderers in an atheistic institution.

Instead of writing it off as an impossible task, tune the message to your respective audience and break that lockstep that the bureaucrats have formed around this war.
Convince enough voters that the war is wrong and eventually the politicians will be forced to end it.

/That, or enough people realize the system is a sham and you have a revolt on your hands.
/I'm ok with that...

way south: illegal.tender: Of course marijuana should be legal. I do not believe it will ever happen in America, though, no matter how high the human or financial costs are.

I think you underestimate the power of the electorate to get what it wants.
The problem is that not enough people want it yet.
...
Instead of writing it off as an impossible task, tune the message to your respective audience and break that lockstep that the bureaucrats have formed around this war.
Convince enough voters that the war is wrong and eventually the politicians will be forced to end it.


I don't think you are targeting the correct constituencies, here. The constituencies which are the ones that exert the most influence on the drug war debate are within the government itself: the CIA, the NSA, FBI, DEA, DOD, the DOJ, etc. Almost all of these are, by design, protected from external influence. This means that they cannot be lobbied, or targeted by organized campaigns. They have their own agendas and their own budgets, and influence the executive and legislative branches far more than the citizenry could ever dream of doing.

I read him in Ricardo Moltalban's voice.

I thought this was going to be George Will's follow up column on The Drug War. It will be for decrim too.

way south: illegal.tender: Of course marijuana should be legal. I do not believe it will ever happen in America, though, no matter how high the human or financial costs are.

I think you underestimate the power of the electorate to get what it wants.
The problem is that not enough people want it yet.

What legalization supporters need to do is to organize and work on their message.
Appeal to the conservatives boot-strappyness by reminding them that freedom means having the right to make choices.
Convince "think of the children" types that you are thinking of the children, because you plan to spend the money wasted on firepower and incarceration towards prevention and education.
Explain to the Religious types that alot of those men sitting in jail for meaningless drug chargers are fathers and brothers that could be saved if they were still with their families and going to church, rather than being forced to hold company with murderers in an atheistic institution.

Instead of writing it off as an impossible task, tune the message to your respective audience and break that lockstep that the bureaucrats have formed around this war.
Convince enough voters that the war is wrong and eventually the politicians will be forced to end it.

/That, or enough people realize the system is a sham and you have a revolt on your hands.
/I'm ok with that...

I wish I could say that this works, but it doesn't. It just plain doesn't. I've talked with Prosperity Gospel believers on all kinds of issues from marriage equality to abortion, from drug policy to universal health care. I've tried shaping my arguments in ways that they should almost certainly support, like talking about how marriage equality strengthens families and is a sign of love for our fellow man, how abortion can sometimes be used in cases where the only alternative to losing the kid is losing both the mother and the kid, how imprisoning non-violent drug users turns them into hardened criminals and renders them non-productive, or how universal health care lifts a huge cost from businesses and would dramatically reduce business regulation. None of it ever makes a difference because the arguments are coming from someone they see as borderline evil. They might as well be statues. The only people that are ever going to change their minds are themselves.

illegal.tender: Marijuana will never be legal.

1) Governments do not admit mistakes. Policy decisions made on a national level are held on to no matter how destructive they wind up being. There are some notable exceptions to this in US history -- prohibition, e.g. -- but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. The war on drugs and terror will never be reconsidered, or their ill effects given any official weight by those currently in power.

2) Profit. There are vast amounts of government moneys involved in drug prohibition, and the recipients of these funds will fight -- literally -- to the death to keep them flowing. Private prisons, drug rehabilitation centers, anti-drug task forces, anti-drug propaganda organizations, military task forces, etc., etc. Those billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs will not be let go of lightly.

3) Power. The war on drugs gives justifications for increased governmental powers of the population. Power, once given, is rarely given up without bloodshed. The more power given, the less likely a government is to voluntarily give up that power. The prohibition of marijuana (and other drugs) gives the government vast powers. They will not give up those powers without a struggle. (And by "struggle", I mean "revolution.")

Of course marijuana should be legal. I do not believe it will ever happen in America, though, no matter how high the human or financial costs are.

Cannabis WAS legal in this Country, for far longer than it has been prohibited. I think people tend to forget that simple fact.

The fact that it also is absolutely, positively mis-scheduled by the federal government must, at some point, win out....especially considering that about 80% of the American people are in favor of allowing medical use of Cannabis, and many polls indicate that nearly 50% are in favor of at least decrim for recreational use.

/RE-legalize it!

Guatemala....

illegal.tender: They have their own agendas and their own budgets, and influence the executive and legislative branches far more than the citizenry could ever dream of doing.

Their budgets and leadership are still controlled by the officials we elect. So citizens have the power to decide who will decide who is the boss of the FBI, CIA, DEA, etc, etc... and whether they get funding or not.

It comes down to how badly we want this to happen.

The last prohibition ended because it was unpopular and the government was going bankrupt with war on the horizon.
Those same factors are still in play. I don't think its impossible to push the issue in the very near future.

way south: illegal.tender: They have their own agendas and their own budgets, and influence the executive and legislative branches far more than the citizenry could ever dream of doing.

Their budgets and leadership are still controlled by the officials we elect. So citizens have the power to decide who will decide who is the boss of the FBI, CIA, DEA, etc, etc... and whether they get funding or not.


I appreciate your positiveness, but that's pretty naive. The government is almost entirely protected from change, regardless of changes from elections. This is partially a good thing: broad changes in policy are disruptive and can have deleterious effects upon long-term government stability. But it also means that policies tend to be cemented once they are in place, regardless of elections.

With only the rarest of exceptions, policy changes occur in government only when they increase political power: war, police powers, etc. (This is why I expect that the TSA will be here until the day you and I are dead and buried.)

The repeal of prohibition happened in a very different country, with different power players and profit motives. Drugs have deep, deep financial and political incentives keeping them illegal. Most of these come from within government itself; the opinions of the People matter little, if at all.

illegal.tender: the opinions of the People matter little, if at all.

Then you put the second amendment to work and burn the system down for a fresh start.
That may be a bit extreme for drug legalization, but as I said earlier it depends on how badly people want it.

Prohibition wasn't the only drastic change. Racists believed they had the government wrapped up around their little finger when the Civil rights movement took them to task. Politicians quickly discovered that being unpopular was not something that meshed well with a job in politics.

The problem with legalization is that its not a popular movement. At least not more than the wedge issues being used in this election. Its just a thought floating out there with a few passive supporters and not much else.
We have to make it popular.
If people want it more than they want free health care or gay marriage bans, it happens no matter what the DEA wants.

If it doesn't happen, its not because the Fed has any magic power over us. Its because not enough of the electorate care.

Aarontology: Don't they know the way to fight drugs is to enact draconian sentencing, give the police paramilitary powers with no oversight, and privatize the prison system?

And what's your solution then? Raise the white flag?

This is actually a pretty ballsy thing for a Guatamelan president to say in public. The CIA would think nothing of hiring mercenaries to murder him in a "pro-democracy" coup and writing a fairy tale about how he supported terorists/communists/whoever-the-current-villain-is. They did it over bananas once, for god's sake, and this is a much more serious issue. I'll be watching for a followup.

Sounds like Guatemala needs some democracy.