Mexico's Prez asks UN for a new approach to War on Drugs

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
Mexican president asks the UN to look for alternatives in the war on drugs - He considers they international organization should lead a "non-prohibitionist" debate

by EFE September 26 2012

Mexican President, Felipe Calderon, speaking before the UN's General Assembly at their New York headquarters.

NEW YORK. - The departing Mexican president, Felipe Calderon, demanded the drug-consumer countries take "strong" measures to stop the capital flow to criminal groups and urged the United Nations to tackle the illegal drug industry outside of the current prohibitionist approach.

"The time for consumer countries to sincerely evaluate if they can significantly reduce their consumption has arrived; if they cannot, it is urgent that they take strong measures to at least stop the massive flow of money to criminals," said Calderon to a full UN General Assembly.

President Calderon stated that the main power criminal organizations have comes from the "multimillionaire" economic resources they receive from consumer countries and warned that while this "mountain of money" doesn't stop, organized crime will continue to "compromise" peace and "stalk" governments and societies.

The Mexican president said that if consumer countries "can't or won't" assume their share of responsibility in the fight against drug traffickers, then the moment to open a "deep" international debate to balance the current "prohibitionist approach" has arrived.

In his last intervention at the UN's General Assembly before surrendering the command of the country in December, he demanded the organization to lead a discussion "fit for the XXI century" about the fight against drugs that is "free of prejudice" and that allows for "new and efficient" solutions.

"Since the UN searches for solutions to global problems, takes care of hunger and global warming, it is time that it steps in to stop this death wave," said the president, regretting that Latin America has become the most violent region in the world due to drugs.

After reminding his audience that the violence of organized crime is one of the first causes of death and reiterating that the UN has the obligation of fighting "one of the biggest threats to democracy in the XXI century," he explained that Mexico is suffering the consequences and considers his fight against these groups as a "legal and moral" obligation.

The Mexican president also regretted that the efforts made by his country to fight organized crime "don't find an equitable response" in all countries, and he criticized the international community for being incapable of reaching an agreement on gun control last July.

"But the traffic of guns is just an edge of the problem. We have to recognize an unarguable truth: the consumption of illegal drugs in developed countries is causing thousands of deaths in the countries of production and transportation causing violence levels that our people don't deserve," he claimed.

The growing demand of drugs is giving criminals an "economic power" that allows them to buy off "almost any authority" according to Calderon, who also warned that the money sparks in criminals "such ambition" that they are capable of "committing the worst acts humanity has ever seen."

The Mexican president emphasized that the current "well intentioned" approach of keeping drugs away from youngsters through legally combating the offer has a problem: "the massive profit that comes from the black market, caused by the prohibition, have intensified the criminal's ambition."

Lastly, he said that there's still "a lot of work to be done" to reduce the demand and to prevent it, for which he advocated the duplication of efforts to fight this "public health" problem with preventive policies and campaigns to make young people understand that addictions are "the slavery of the XXI century."
Translation: [email protected]


​In the immortal words of Bruce Willis: "Welcome to the party, pal".
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
The CIA probably receives the majority of its operating budget from narco trade, they aint gonna legalize shit.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
"Since the UN searches for solutions to global problems, takes care of hunger and global warming, it is time that it steps in to stop this death wave,"

they have been doin such a bang-up job on all that other shit why not let them have a crack at the dope issue, im sure they wont fuck it up...

i bet they got some awesome ideas for an Opium for Food program, or maybe Oil for Coke...
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Actually, several of the leaders south of the US border have been making logical suggestions regarding the war on drugs. If legalization passes in one, or several US states, I think the dam is going to break on cannabis.
 

timbo123

Active Member
How can legalization pass in any state? The Controlled Substances Act interferes afaik. cn
http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/

If it passes in a state, the federal government will have no choice but to discontinue ignoring the will of the people.
Federal law trumps state law, true... but the federal government has to rely on the cooperation of state law enforcement to uphold the federal law. States who legalize will simply resist federal compulsion to act to enforce the federal law.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
It's a nice thought, but the Federal Gov't has a pretty big stick to swing. Remember the national 55mph speed limit? States weren't forced to comply. All they needed to do was kiss their Fed highway funds good-bye. cn
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
It's a nice thought, but the Federal Gov't has a pretty big stick to swing. Remember the national 55mph speed limit? States weren't forced to comply. All they needed to do was kiss their Fed highway funds good-bye. cn
That's what happens when you let the federal government control the purse strings.

I am of the opinion that if a state were to legalize it would have to go to the Supremes and based on what happened a couple months ago, the state is fucked.

And I'm not so sure federal trumps state, either. If it went against the Constitution, I could understand but I would like to see the authority to ban ingesting certain substances, challenged... but it's the same court and like ND said, between the military, intelligence and law enforcement all having a deep interest in keeping it illegal, there's not enough desire among the non users to get it changed.
 

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
As I read it, it says ... Give Mexico money or we will legalize drugs...

Typical shakedown speech.
 

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
As I read it, it says ... Give Mexico money or we will legalize drugs...

Typical shakedown speech.
LOL, that's the way things are done here.

I just think it's strange that he comes out with this now, since the worst of the violence has happened under his administration.

Legalization is growing popular faster in Latin America than in the US.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-nadelmann/legalization-debate-takes_b_1337053.html
The last 2 paragraphs sums it up, pretty well.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
It is one of the top issues down here, if not THE top issue. Most Americans don't even know that it was a central theme of the OAS summit several months ago. They certainly know about a prostitution scandal though.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Actually, several of the leaders south of the US border have been making logical suggestions regarding the war on drugs. If legalization passes in one, or several US states, I think the dam is going to break on cannabis.
You think Washington is feeling the pressure? I think you're right but I'm not so sure it will have much effect.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/

If it passes in a state, the federal government will have no choice but to discontinue ignoring the will of the people.
Federal law trumps state law, true... but the federal government has to rely on the cooperation of state law enforcement to uphold the federal law. States who legalize will simply resist federal compulsion to act to enforce the federal law.
federal law does NOT invalidate state law, in fact state law and jurisdiction supersedes federal law in many areas.

federal law only exceeds state jurisdiction in the case of bank robbery, interstate crime, kidnapping treason and tax fraud.

the controlled substances act is bad law in many ways, in that it places a burden on the states to enforce a ban on an activity the state might not find objectionable, like nevada legalizing prostitution and gambling despite several federal laws which prohibit this activity. meanwhile if states wish to enforce EXISTING federal laws that impose a ban on actions that the state DOES find objectionable, the federal authorities hold a remarkably different opinion on THAT law enforcement activity (arizona illegal imigration laws)

further the controlled substances act is a simple dodge around existing supreme court rulings that the congress has no power to ban drugs or booze (barring a constitutional amendment) even through their power to tax, so they delegated the power to "regulate" drugs and other "substances" to a bureaucracy (which has no actual power since the congress had no power to delegate to them) and the newly minted bureaucrats simply mandated that drugs are bad mmmm'kay... and cannabis was listed right alongside heroin, opium, laudanum, cocaine, meth and huffing paint thinner. the fact remains that only the states may ban anything that the people might do, with the notable exceptions delineated in specific within the constitution and it's amendments, and i dont see smokin grass among the things congress has the power to regulate. and i looked.

TWICE!!
 

desert dude

Well-Known Member
How can legalization pass in any state? The Controlled Substances Act interferes afaik. cn
CSA trumps state law, that's true, but no state is required to have a state law against cannabis. Alcohol prohibition ended in a similar way: multiple states voided their anti-alcohol laws and told the the feds, "enforce your own idiotic laws, we're not gonna help". The feds won't like it, they will threaten and huff but in the end they can't enforce the CSA on their own.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
CSA trumps state law, that's true, but no state is required to have a state law against cannabis. Alcohol prohibition ended in a similar way: multiple states voided their anti-alcohol laws and told the the feds, "enforce your own idiotic laws, we're not gonna help". The feds won't like it, they will threaten and huff but in the end they can't enforce the CSA on their own.
Alcohol prohibition also ended when the Federal government had much, much smaller golden handcuffs on the states' economies.
That said, if your envisioned outcome happens, all I can say is "cool!" cn
 

PeyoteReligion

Well-Known Member
You think Washington is feeling the pressure? I think you're right but I'm not so sure it will have much effect.
I hope we don't legalize here in Washington on this ballot. It's all wrong, it leaves us open to a DUI if driving "under the influence" of cannabis. Guess how the measure? Blood test. Which we all know is not fair, you could have not smoked for a week and you'll get a DUI. So I'm voting against legalization this time.
 
Top