Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S.-led "war on drugs" questioned at U.N. (re: the 4 decade effort, strategy and results)
Yahoo! News ^ | 9/26/12 | Brian Winter | Reuters

Posted on 09/26/2012 4:56:58 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Guatemala all called for a vigorous global debate of anti-narcotics laws at the United Nations on Wednesday, raising new questions about the wisdom of the four-decade-old, U.S.-led "war on drugs."

Although none of the leaders explicitly called for narcotics to be legalized, they suggested at the U.N. General Assembly that they would welcome wholesale changes to policies that have shown scant evidence of limiting drug flows while contributing to massive violence throughout Latin America.

"It is our duty to determine - on an objective scientific basis - if we are doing the best we can or if there are better options to combat this scourge," Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos said.

...

Guatemala's President Otto Perez Molina echoed Calderon's call and went even further, saying that "the basic premise of our war against drugs has proved to have serious shortcomings."

The speeches, which were a few hours apart, constituted some of the most public challenges to date of anti-drug policies that have been mostly unchanged since the 1970s.

Mexico and Colombia are two of Washington's firmest allies in Latin America and both work closely with U.S. anti-drug efforts. While the subject of legalization was discussed at an Americas-wide summit in Colombia attended by U.S. President Barack Obama earlier this year, raising the once-taboo subject at the 193-nation meeting in New York amounts to an escalation of the debate.

Obama has ruled out any major changes to drug laws, but some U.S. diplomats privately concede that the consensus around Latin America is clearly swinging against the status quo, and that some degree of change is imminent.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: cocaine; dopersrights; drugs; drugwar; heroin; obamavoters; questioned; unitednations; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
some degree of change is imminent..

Bob Marley said it best.. Just legalize it!

1 posted on 09/26/2012 4:57:01 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Ironic these speeches are delivered at one of the biggest den of thieves on the planet..
next to CONgra$$ and the Fed, that is.

The United Nations Headquarters is seen during the General Assembly in New York,
September 25, 2012. REUTERS/Jason Reed

2 posted on 09/26/2012 5:03:06 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The real motivation for the South Americans is clear. If it’s legal and they control it, they’ll all become economically relevant! Yay for Paraguay, the next economic superpower!


3 posted on 09/26/2012 5:04:18 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
All north americans can look forward to is fewer dogs and old ladies killed during no-knock raids.

/johnny

4 posted on 09/26/2012 5:08:51 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
One definite advantage to legalizing weed would be it would cut cartel revenue, but there is a big but(t). Will the cartels all weaken or will they fight over the scraps of the coke, meth, and heroin trades? Will they take their soft control over the human smuggling routes to a new level and extort more money from the illegals?

Legalizing possession is just the start. If you do that then you still have the cartels because they are the supply. A legal supply is the only threat to them. Who provides the legal supply, and does anybody really think the government will let market forces set the price. The politicians in California already start drooling every time they talk about being able to tax marijuana.

5 posted on 09/26/2012 5:09:23 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

That’s something nobody ever considers. You take away 70% of profit from these criminal organizations, do you honestly think they’ll give it up and get a legitimate job? No. Drugs are not the only way to make money on the black market, and these guys will compensate for lost profit by accelerating human trafficking, weapons smuggling and such. That’s what worries me. These thugs have already showed what they’re capable of, and they essentially control Mexico today.

This will never happen anyway. Big Tobacco and Liquor won’t allow it to cut in on their slice of the substance market.


6 posted on 09/26/2012 5:16:46 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Damn. I can’t believe it. They got something right.


7 posted on 09/26/2012 5:19:58 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Mexico is a trans shipper of a majority of the coke that hits America. They also took over the meth trade as America cracked down on precursors. Lately, my area has seen a re-emergence of Mexican tar heroin. I don't know if that is a product of true demand or the cartels taking over American interstate drug trafficking.

By and large weed is their biggest commodity so legalizing a domestic supply will put a big squeeze on them. They will still have hard drugs to smuggle and fight over.

It is very rare that we can have a discussion on this topic without the invective. It is a serious topic with lots of permutations.

8 posted on 09/26/2012 5:28:54 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The biggest issue with the war on drugs was that it soon became the “federal war on constitutional rights” because in order to enforce certain edicts of it they had to trample all over states rights and costitutional rights of the citizenry.


9 posted on 09/26/2012 5:33:02 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
It is very rare that we can have a discussion on this topic without the invective. It is a serious topic with lots of permutations.

Yep. Some "more conservative than thou" authoritarians will be here soon to call you a liberal or doper pretty quick. Still, the WOD has been a disaster for liberty and a boon for the criminals.

10 posted on 09/26/2012 5:52:16 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
1. Legalize and regulate domestic pot.
2. Legalize prescription hard drugs.
3. Tax the hell out of all of the above.
4. Seal the border so tight that some endangered species actually do disappear.
5. Deport criminal aliens along with their entire extended family and make a second bust a permanent and isolated lock away, charged to their home country.
6. Add crime while under the influence to the "special circumstances" realm now reserved for use of a firearm.
11 posted on 09/26/2012 6:22:02 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Hah! The UN wants the US to surrender in the WOD?

Who knew their were libertarians at the UN?


12 posted on 09/26/2012 6:58:05 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Good grief! A moment of sanity crept into the UN. Must be a blue moon or something.


13 posted on 09/26/2012 9:58:59 PM PDT by TigersEye (dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit; Viennacon
One definite advantage to legalizing weed would be it would cut cartel revenue, but there is a big but(t). Will the cartels all weaken or will they fight over the scraps of the coke, meth, and heroin trades?

Why "or"? The two options are not mutually exclusive. Cartels can't by fiat create a demand for coke, meth, and heroin - so cartels weakened by loss of pot profits will fight and further weaken themselves. Sounds like a win to me.

Will they take their soft control over the human smuggling routes to a new level and extort more money from the illegals?

Real crimes with actual victims can't offer the same astronomical profit margins as victimless 'crimes' like drug selling.

Legalizing possession is just the start. If you do that then you still have the cartels because they are the supply. A legal supply is the only threat to them. Who provides the legal supply,

The same free market that provides the legal supply of the drugs alcohol and tobacco.

and does anybody really think the government will let market forces set the price. The politicians in California already start drooling every time they talk about being able to tax marijuana.

Only NYC has been stupid enough to tax into existence a black market in a legal drug (tobacco); the evidence is that despite themselves, political pressures pretty reliably prevent that level of taxation. And it's worth noting that the stupid NYC tax has the stated purpose of diminishing use of the legal drug - not something I think we need to worry about with CA and pot.

14 posted on 09/27/2012 8:13:48 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon; USNBandit
You take away 70% of profit from these criminal organizations, do you honestly think they’ll give it up and get a legitimate job? No. Drugs are not the only way to make money on the black market, and these guys will compensate for lost profit by accelerating human trafficking, weapons smuggling and such.

Cartels can't by fiat create a demand for those goods. And real crimes with actual victims can't offer the same astronomical profit margins as victimless 'crimes' like drug selling.

15 posted on 09/27/2012 8:16:45 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Because the Mexican narcoterrorists need a legal cover for their money from kidnapping, extortion, human trafficking, and gun running.


16 posted on 09/27/2012 11:16:06 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

Can’t smoke a tobacco cigarette at a concert or in a bar anymore. Can’t buy liquor at a store between the hours of 9pm and 8am and can’t buy it under 21 etc.

There would still be plenty of laws on the books. And some employers already have a “no tobacco use” policy even off premises/after work.

What should the penalty be for someone who provides dope to teenagers? Or should it be encouraged the same way Planned Abortion encourages teen sex through SIECUS?


17 posted on 09/27/2012 11:20:23 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Because the Mexican narcoterrorists need a legal cover for their money from kidnapping, extortion, human trafficking, and gun running.

Are you laboring under the delusion that narcoterrorists are currently unable to launder their money?

18 posted on 09/27/2012 12:33:06 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Can’t smoke a tobacco cigarette at a concert or in a bar anymore. Can’t buy liquor at a store between the hours of 9pm and 8am and can’t buy it under 21 etc.

There would still be plenty of laws on the books. And some employers already have a “no tobacco use” policy even off premises/after work.

What's your point?

What should the penalty be for someone who provides dope to teenagers?

Something on the order of magnitude of the penalty for providing the drug alcohol to teenagers - but that would be up to each community just as the alcohol penalty is.

19 posted on 09/27/2012 12:36:01 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

My point is that legalizing pot won’t save one damn life.


20 posted on 09/27/2012 12:39:27 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Obama likes to claim credit for getting Osama. Why hasn't he tried Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
Because the Mexican narcoterrorists need a legal cover for their money from kidnapping, extortion, human trafficking, and gun running.

Are you laboring under the delusion that narcoterrorists are currently unable to launder their money?

My point is that legalizing pot won’t save one damn life.

Because the cartels will just do more kidnapping, extortion, human trafficking, and gun running? (I'm guessing at your argument because you haven't fleshed it out.) Those activities offer lower profit margins than drug dealing (or else they'd have ditched drug dealing already) - so they'll assuredly end up with less material resources with which to conduct violence.

21 posted on 09/27/2012 12:48:09 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson