What's new

Former Mexican official urges U.S. to legalize marijuana

Rosy Cheeks

dancin' cheek to cheek
Veteran
dip01-mexico_114506gm-e.jpg


(CNN) -- The United States and Mexico should both legalize marijuana in an attempt to break the power of the Mexican drug cartels and end the spiraling violence south of the border, a former Mexican foreign minister said Tuesday.

Jorge Castaneda, in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, said marijuana "should be legalized in both countries," and said it is ridiculous for Mexico to try to stop marijuana from entering the United States when it's legally sold for medical purposes in California.

"The Drug Enforcement Administration says that 60 percent of the Mexican (drug) cartels' profits come from marijuana. If we start with that, it's a big chunk," he added.
"We can't do everything overnight ... and we can't do it in Mexico if the U.S. doesn't do it at the same time."

Castaneda strongly criticized Mexican President Felipe Calderon for declaring war against the drug cartels, a war that has cost as many as 17,000 lives since he took office in December 2006.

In the past month alone, 900 people were killed -- a new monthly record, he said. Sixteen students died in what's thought to be a drug-related massacre in the border city of Juarez over the weekend.

"It's hard for me quite honestly -- and I think for many Mexicans -- to accept that the more deaths we have, the more successful the strategy is," he added.
"I think President Calderon rushed into this, and now we're paying the consequences."

Mexico's consul general in New York, Ruben Beltran, who also served in the U.S. border states of California and Arizona, strongly disagreed with Castaneda's assessment.
"Are we going to raise the white flag? Are we going to surrender? Are we going to surrender the ability of the government to look for the rule of law and secure the rule of law?" he asked.

"I don't think there's an alternative," he said. "The monopoly of force -- use of force -- pertains to the state, and the state is the one who should use the force to secure the stability of the country."

Calderon has sent 45,000 troops to help overstretched police departments fight the drug cartels.

"What we're witnessing right now is maybe the peak of that violence," Beltran said. "Let me assure you that the Mexican government is not going to relinquish its duty to confront organized crime, and that's what's happening right now."

Castaneda, however, said Mexico is paying an enormously high price because of the aggressive approach of the Calderon government. He said the administration should be seeking to contain drug cartels, not destroy them.

"It's not different from what 100,000 American troops are doing in Afghanistan with heroin. Not one of those troops is combating the heroin traffic from Afghanistan. They're containing it because they have other priorities," he said.

Beltran conceded it's going to take more than one administration in Mexico City to defeat the drug cartels. He also called on the United States to provide more help: "In order for Mexico to be successful in this war, we need increased cooperation with the United States to stem the flow of cash, weapons, and ammo from the United States to Mexico."
Castaneda, however, said that on a recent trip across the border from San Diego, California, to Tijuana, in the Mexican state of Baja California, there was not the slightest inspection of any car crossing from north to south, on either the U.S. or Mexican side of the border.

"They can't do it. It's too expensive," he said. "The local communities don't want it. It backs up queues tens of miles north, the same way as in the south. They're not going to do it."
Castaneda's observation puts in question a promise by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in March last year, when she said, "We're sending technology to the border that will allow us to scan or do non-invasive X-rays to see whether cars are carrying assault weapons, other kinds of weapons, that are flowing into Mexico to fuel these drug cartels."

Source:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/02/02/us.mexico.marijuana/index.html
 
Last edited:

Nesnarb

New member
This Beltran guy is a fucking moron. Why does he even bring up surrender. It's not surrender it's pulling the rug out from under them and then keeping them down. And now were to the point of xrays WTF
 

xfargox

Member
"The United States and Mexico should both legalize marijuana in an attempt to break the power of the Mexican drug cartels and end the spiraling violence south of the border, a former Mexican foreign minister said Tuesday."

For a country that prides itself of being logical and shit, we just got our shit wrecked. That is the main point I think marijuana (and all drugs, while we're at it) should be legal.

Which is worse:

Irresponsible people using drugs, getting addicted, etc

or

Irresponsible people using drugs illegally, getting addicted, getting arrested, AND FUNDING ORGANIZED CRIME
 
if we legalized and actually locked down the borders, then americans could legally grow drugs for other americans and american money could STAY INSIDE THE US. institute a currency control policy already, it's what a lot of the eastern european countries did to boost their economies after the fall of communism. why is it too good of a solution for us?
 

Blimey

Take A Deep Breath
Veteran
We get a lot of these sort of news stories, and what strikes me is that it's nearly always a former minister/president etc that comes out of the woodwork to talk common sense.

It's just a pity that none of them have the courage of their convictions to say these things while they are in office and may have some actual power to do something about it....usually because they are scared of
a) Getting fired
b) Not getting re-elected
c) Losing campaign contributions from one or more of the many special-interest lobbies that would be harmed by legal cannabis (booze / big pharma / textiles / oil / drug cartels etc etc)

Even Clinton came out saying that cannabis should be decriminalized mere months after leaving office, yet did sweet FA in his 8 years in charge.
 

xfargox

Member
We get a lot of these sort of news stories, and what strikes me is that it's nearly always a former minister/president etc that comes out of the woodwork to talk common sense.

It's just a pity that none of them have the courage of their convictions to say these things while they are in office and may have some actual power to do something about it....usually because they are scared of
a) Getting fired
b) Not getting re-elected
c) Losing campaign contributions from one or more of the many special-interest lobbies that would be harmed by legal cannabis (booze / big pharma / textiles / oil / drug cartels etc etc)

Even Clinton came out saying that cannabis should be decriminalized mere months after leaving office, yet did sweet FA in his 8 years in charge.

We may not be able to control #3 unfortunately, but #1 isn't a worry in America and #2...

We need to tell people we support it! If everyone that smoked pot told the gov't they supported it, the gov't would realize that their constituents SUPPORT it, they'd be more inclined to voice their opinion.

#2 is a direct result of us not voicing our opinions. You don't have to do much. Just write some emails, then maybe some letters. Maybe some phone calls. That's not like being some serious activist or anything. It's taking your right as a citizen.
 

bergerbuddy

Canna Coco grower
Veteran
if we legalized and actually locked down the borders, then americans could legally grow drugs for other americans and american money could STAY INSIDE THE US. institute a currency control policy already, it's what a lot of the eastern european countries did to boost their economies after the fall of communism. why is it too good of a solution for us?

It does not work because it IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL....

PERIOD... The U.S. is not a former communist state it is a Federal Republic... and it favors CAPITOLISM...

We grow it better... aint nobody gonna spend money on mexi herbs.... They have a lot of quality controls to implement...

Course... we can compete with ANYONE... bring em on....

JUST DON'T FUCK WITH THE U.S. CONSTITUTION..

In fact, give it a read... understand it... and understand how it was the framework that enabled America to become GREAT..

We dont need to stinkin controls..
 
Actually, giving the right to grow pot would reinstate both states rights and the right to privacy which ARE guaranteed in the Constitution. Closing our borders, keeping our money here, focusing on trade between the states, finding home-grown ways to fulfill peoples' wants/desires for goods and services is VERY patriotic. Check out the daughters of liberty and other groups that found AMERICAN-made ways to replace imported goods that the British wouldn't revoke the taxes on and which Americans (at that time British colonists) thought of as essential to civilization. STaying out of other people's business and building up our home country is exactly what the original founding fathers were about when they were President. Defending our borders against invaders, even if now they come in in small groups is also patriotic. War of 1812 anyone?
 

xfargox

Member
Yeah, uhh, criminalization of marijuana is actually unconstitutional if you look at the 14th amendment and the legal precedent set by those porno cases in the late 60s -- early 70s.

Look up Miller v California, Stanley v Georgia, and go from there.

If I could find the judge's quote that I used in a class debate, I'd post it here. It basically said "if a dude's doing it in the privacy of his own home, and it's hurting no one, then fuck off."

Sometimes I get mad when I hear politicians give some of their reasons for its continued criminalization, but to be honest, sometimes it's kind of funny.

"This shit is 20 times more powerful than your parents' weed!" (Okay, so they smoked 1% thc? Oh, and also, WOOHOO! It's not like we'll die from it...)
"We don't want to say that it's okay to smoke marijuana" (thanks for taking away our freedom to privacy and the general idea of having our own opinions!)
 

blinx420

Member
They need to just lock down the effing border already and round up national guards and military all cross the border so then cartels would have no other choice but to start smuggling the coke from the outlying islands like lin the old days..

That would clamp down illegal immigration and stop the violence in mexico both sides win.
 

Clackamas Coot

Active member
Veteran
Pot is financing the Mexican cartels? Seriously?

It's amazing that this kind of tripe is passed around on 'news venues' like CNN as factual. Nothing short of amazing.

CC
 

Rosy Cheeks

dancin' cheek to cheek
Veteran
if we legalized and actually locked down the borders, then americans could legally grow drugs for other americans and american money could STAY INSIDE THE US. institute a currency control policy already, it's what a lot of the eastern european countries did to boost their economies after the fall of communism. why is it too good of a solution for us?

Well, here's my take on it.

If you look at it globally, most of the major drug producing countries belong to the Third World Club. Which is partially why they produce drugs. Infrastructure and law enforcement is incapable or too corrupt to stop organized crime syndicates from large scale producing or trafficking drugs.

Countries such as Afghanistan, Laos and Burma are good examples of this.

Now, industrialized countries have proven utterly incapable or rather unwilling of helping these nations out.
Also, fluctuating prices of food (rice, sugar, coffee, etc) and other raw materials on the world market severely impact 'simple' economies which largely depend on one or two of these export commodities.

On the other hand, drugs such as Opium, Coca and Cannabis are sure values. They can - literally - save the economy of these nations (just as they probably could save the Californian economy).

If you look at it on a local level, it's the same thing. People in the rich part of town buy the drugs, while people in the poor part of town produce and distribute them.

So, is it really wise to dress barriers between rich drug consumers and poor drug producers?

My desire for a more harmonious and better balanced world makes me think otherwise.
 
I guess I'd like to see the money Americans spend having fun going back to other Americans who would then spend it on goods and services here in America. I don't like seeing American money leaving the country to line the pockets of people in other countries. I don't think we can change Americans doing drugs, so the government should tax and regulate (bring in money), save on the war on drugs/prisons/prosecution, and Americans can buy American, at least in this one instance.

But of course, the alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceutical, and prison/industrial complex, as well as the lawyers and police would have less to do. Well then the police could concentrate on meth and other drugs instead, so they woudn't have less to do.

Everyone else probably doesn't want to be put out of a job by American produced drugs.

Interesting conversation!
 

itisme

Active member
Veteran
One day our government has to wise up over weed! SERIOUSLY! We got way to many non violent crimanals in prison!
 

iSmokeTrees

Member
If I could find the judge's quote that I used in a class debate, I'd post it here. It basically said "if a dude's doing it in the privacy of his own home, and it's hurting no one, then fuck off."

You are thinking of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty." It is what the constitution is based on.

It basically says that man should have the freedom to do any victimless crime as long as he does not harm others in the process. I.E. if you wanna shoot heroine in your bathroom, game on
 

xfargox

Member
You are thinking of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty." It is what the constitution is based on.

It basically says that man should have the freedom to do any victimless crime as long as he does not harm others in the process. I.E. if you wanna shoot heroine in your bathroom, game on

Hah, didn't know that :D

But that being the case, there was a judge that, in his ruling, did say something along those lines. That establishes legal precedent.

Looks like someone's gonna be doing some reading!

I agree with such a stance by the way. I think we should be free to do whatever we want, so long as it does not hurt someone else or impede upon their freedom.

I dunno, the more I look at politics, the more I think it's just a bunch of children who missed out on the pre-school lessons :p
 
Top