PDA

View Full Version : Contributing to our Venezuelan Problem


Braincase
04-12-2006, 08:47 AM
I wonder if drug trafficking is cause to invade?

Link (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/11/D8GU6CN00.html)

5 1/2 Tons of Cocaine Found on Venezuela Plane
Apr 11 10:30 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

MEXICO CITY


Mexican soldiers seized 5 1/2 tons of cocaine from a commercial plane arriving from Venezuela, Mexico's Defense Department announced Tuesday.

The army was waiting for the plane on Monday at the airport of Cuidad de Carmen, 550 miles east of Mexico City, after receiving information from Venezuelan and U.S. authorities, Gen. Carlos Gaytan told a news conference.

Soldiers arrested Colombian Miguel Vazquez, 47, who was the plane's co-pilot, but the pilot escaped, Gaytan said. There were no passengers.

U.S. and Mexican officials say that cocaine and heroin is increasingly passing from Colombia through Venezuela to Mexico where it is smuggled into the United States. While drug traffickers used planes to smuggle large quantities of drugs in the 1990s, most Mexican traffickers now use land and sea routes.

A U.S. State Department report released in March said that Venezuela has become a key transit point for drugs because of "rampant corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement and a weak judicial system."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez suspended cooperation with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in August, accusing its agents of spying.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2006, 01:09 PM
I hope not. I'm not sure what it would really accomplish, long term.

I've become convinced this is a problem of our own making. Demand is driving supply. They may be supplying, but the real problem lies with the continued demand in this country. Until we address that, in an effective way....nothing else will likely matter.

Boozer
04-12-2006, 03:08 PM
I hope Chavez gets violated with a rusty farm implement.

banyon
04-12-2006, 03:20 PM
I hope Chavez gets violated with a rusty farm implement.

you don't think we were doing espionage with our DEA agents?

jiveturkey
04-12-2006, 03:45 PM
I hope not. I'm not sure what it would really accomplish, long term.

I've become convinced this is a problem of our own making. Demand is driving supply. They may be supplying, but the real problem lies with the continued demand in this country. Until we address that, in an effective way....nothing else will likely matter.
We should start by locking everyone up. :)

Boozer
04-12-2006, 03:48 PM
you don't think we were doing espionage with our DEA agents?

Probably. My desire for him to be penetrated with a dirty rake has nothing to do with his relations with the U.S. He's the worst petty tyrant in the Western Hemisphere (yes, I know who else is in that category). The Venezuelans keep on electing him, though, so I guess they deserve what they get.

Dave Lane
04-12-2006, 03:52 PM
I hope not. I'm not sure what it would really accomplish, long term.

I've become convinced this is a problem of our own making. Demand is driving supply. They may be supplying, but the real problem lies with the continued demand in this country. Until we address that, in an effective way....nothing else will likely matter.


Yep. Much like prohibition it is an unwinnable battle unless demand drops.

Dave

banyon
04-12-2006, 04:21 PM
Probably. My desire for him to be penetrated with a dirty rake has nothing to do with his relations with the U.S. He's the worst petty tyrant in the Western Hemisphere (yes, I know who else is in that category). The Venezuelans keep on electing him, though, so I guess they deserve what they get.

IMO, there is a tremendous amount of underinformed bias against him in the American press b/c he has nationalized interests in the country formerly held by wealthy american businessmen. He gave back much of the land owned by giant MNC agribusinesses to the indian/poor farmers. No wonder this Administration hates him. He is a threat to everything that they stand for (aka the interests of giant MNC's).


We did half-stage a CIA coup against him until the people revolted.

Plus you have the whole Pat Robertson praying for his assassination.

Adept Havelock
04-12-2006, 05:10 PM
I hope not. I'm not sure what it would really accomplish, long term.

I've become convinced this is a problem of our own making. Demand is driving supply. They may be supplying, but the real problem lies with the continued demand in this country. Until we address that, in an effective way....nothing else will likely matter.

Yep. Much like prohibition it is an unwinnable battle unless demand drops.

You gentlemen both have it right. Unless demand is reduced, supply will be maintained. I know it;s not a popular view, but I'm beginning to think decriminalization and taxation (with funds going towards "rehab for addicts" efforts and going after what narcotic black market remains) might be the best option. Remove the profit motive, and many of the problems with narcotics trafficing will go away. The addicts will get the stuff one way or another, why not just make them go to the pharmacy instead?

At least that way it will be out in the open, and the massive profits that fuel most of the violence and other incidental crime that goes with trafficing would both drop.

Sure, we'd have problems with addicts afterward, but we already have plenty of those problems. Treat it like alcohol, except I'd put some draconian penalties on those that let kids have access to it. That, and maybe a campaign to increase the social stigma associated with addiction.

I know many will disagree with this, but as for the occasional user, it's not my cup of tea (or, more appropriately glass of vino), but I can't get bent out of shape about what an adult does on thier own time. That is, with the caveat that they be personally responsible about and for it. I think it's time to make drugs an issue of personal responsibility, not government prohibition.

I understand the arguments against it. I'm willing to listen to new ideas. I'm just tired of trying to fight the same losing battle that we finally ended (as far as alcohol is concerned) with the 21'st amendment in 1933.

Boozer
04-12-2006, 06:17 PM
IMO, there is a tremendous amount of underinformed bias against him in the American press b/c he has nationalized interests in the country formerly held by wealthy american businessmen. He gave back much of the land owned by giant MNC agribusinesses to the indian/poor farmers. No wonder this Administration hates him. He is a threat to everything that they stand for (aka the interests of giant MNC's).


We did half-stage a CIA coup against him until the people revolted.

Plus you have the whole Pat Robertson praying for his assassination.

I've hated Chavez since 2000. I'm old school like that. Again, the nationalization has nothing to do with my dislike.

banyon
04-12-2006, 06:19 PM
I've hated Chavez since 2000. I'm old school like that. Again, the nationalization has nothing to do with my dislike.

I got it.

But what's your beef with him?

unlurking
04-12-2006, 06:20 PM
I'm all for decriminalization, regulation, and taxation, but a quicker fix would be to close the f*cking border. This would also mitigate several other issues.

Boozer
04-12-2006, 06:23 PM
I got it.

But what's your beef with him?

Not much, I guess....just that he's the worst abuser of human rights in the Western Hemisphere. Give him another couple of years and Pinochet will seem warm and cuddly by comparison.

Boozer
04-12-2006, 06:25 PM
I got it.

But what's your beef with him?

I should add, the wacko-right isn't the only segment of America that doesn't like this guy. One of my favorite undergrad profs, a South American politics guru (and avowed Marxist), would become incensed at the mere mention of his name.

banyon
04-12-2006, 06:28 PM
I should add, the wacko-right isn't the only segment of America that doesn't like this guy. One of my favorite undergrad profs, a South American politics guru (and avowed Marxist), would become incensed at the mere mention of his name.

I understand. I feel the same way about Donald Rumsfeld. :p

Adept Havelock
04-12-2006, 06:46 PM
I'm all for decriminalization, regulation, and taxation, but a quicker fix would be to close the f*cking border. This would also mitigate several other issues.

For some narcotic trafficing, sure. Or are you planning on closing the entire US border, including all Atlantic and Pacific ports and the border w/Canada? Are you going to search every single cargo container inbound to the US? Would you attempt to build a true "Fortress America", and to hell with a tradition of open borders that dates back to our founders? Where would the manpower, and more importantly, funding for this come from? Your "quick fix" as pertains to the endless War On Drugs seems like more of the same ineffectual tactics to me. It seems you are looking for a "quick fix" (no pun intended) where none exists. JMO.

patteeu
04-12-2006, 06:48 PM
I understand. I feel the same way about Donald Rumsfeld. :p

ROFL

What happens if I say, "Dick Cheney!"

Adept Havelock
04-12-2006, 06:50 PM
ROFL

What happens if I say, "Dick Cheney!"

Well, I can't speak for the others here, but here's the reception he got when he decided to throw out the first pitch at the Nationals game. Jeers, Boos, and Catcalls from the moment he stepped out onto the field. I've got to give the guy some credit though, he didn't bat an eye.

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/0411dv_cheney_pitch_300.wmv

Dick Cheney and Hugo Chavez: Two jackasses, no waiting.

Mr. Kotter
04-12-2006, 07:28 PM
You gentlemen both have it right. Unless demand is reduced, supply will be maintained. I know it;s not a popular view, but I'm beginning to think decriminalization and taxation (with funds going towards "rehab for addicts" efforts and going after what narcotic black market remains) might be the best option. Remove the profit motive, and many of the problems with narcotics trafficing will go away. The addicts will get the stuff one way or another, why not just make them go to the pharmacy instead?

At least that way it will be out in the open, and the massive profits that fuel most of the violence and other incidental crime that goes with trafficing would both drop.

Sure, we'd have problems with addicts afterward, but we already have plenty of those problems. Treat it like alcohol, except I'd put some draconian penalties on those that let kids have access to it. That, and maybe a campaign to increase the social stigma associated with addiction.

I know many will disagree with this, but as for the occasional user, it's not my cup of tea (or, more appropriately glass of vino), but I can't get bent out of shape about what an adult does on thier own time. That is, with the caveat that they be personally responsible about and for it. I think it's time to make drugs an issue of personal responsibility, not government prohibition.

I understand the arguments against it. I'm willing to listen to new ideas. I'm just tired of trying to fight the same losing battle that we finally ended (as far as alcohol is concerned) with the 21'st amendment in 1933.

I basically came to that position on this board, about a little over a year ago. I had always, in the back of my mind wondered, but it just makes too much sense. The costs of the drug war out strip the benefits anymore, IMO too. William F. Buckley's conversion was what really caugth my attention and made me examine my position on it. There has to be a better way.

Adept Havelock
04-12-2006, 07:38 PM
I basically came to that position on this board, about a little over a year ago. I had always, in the back of my mind wondered, but it just makes too much sense. The costs of the drug war out strip the benefits anymore, IMO too. William F. Buckley's conversion was what really caugth my attention and made me examine my position on it. There has to be a better way.

I'll be damned. Small world. I was pretty gung-ho against legalization myself (drugs almost ruined a couple of people I care about a lot). Buckley's conversion was also one of the things that really affected my attitudes as well.

FWIW, I do think this attitude is spreading. Hopefully some better ideas will come into play. IMO, the main obstacle is those law enforcement agencies, the private prison, and to a lesser extent, the private security industries that now have a serious monetary and political stake in maintaining the status quo. That, and the fact that "tough" drug laws still play well in Peoria for the politicos. :cuss:

unlurking
04-12-2006, 07:39 PM
For some narcotic trafficing, sure. Or are you planning on closing the entire US border, including all Atlantic and Pacific ports and the border w/Canada? Are you going to search every single cargo container inbound to the US? Would you attempt to build a true "Fortress America", and to hell with a tradition of open borders that dates back to our founders? Where would the manpower, and more importantly, funding for this come from? Your "quick fix" as pertains to the endless War On Drugs seems like more of the same ineffectual tactics to me. It seems you are looking for a "quick fix" (no pun intended) where none exists. JMO.

"Some" narcotic trafficing?!

There are meth labs up and down the border 10-15 miles from it, under the protection of the Mexican government and local police forces. I don't know the percentage of drugs smuggled though Mexico, but I've heard many people guesstimate it at above 50%.

No, I'm not talking about "Fortress America" (although I loved the game), but IMO, cutting down 50% on the trade would be an ENORMOUS and QUICK first step. Like I said, I am for decriminalization, but I also want that shiite taxed (in other words homegrown to the US).

Edit: I can't believe I'm getting a Dell!! (Not anymore!) :)

unlurking
04-12-2006, 07:41 PM
I'll be damned. Small world. I was pretty gung-ho against legalization myself (drugs almost ruined a couple of people I care about a lot). Buckley's conversion was also one of the things that really affected my attitudes as well.

FWIW, I do think this attitude is spreading. Hopefully some better ideas will come into play. IMO, the main obstacle is those law enforcement agencies, the private prison, and to a lesser extent, the private security industries that now have a serious monetary and political stake in maintaining the status quo. That, and the fact that "tough" drug laws still play well in Peoria for the politicos. :cuss:
As far as the private security industries, hire them out to protect the border.

Adept Havelock
04-12-2006, 07:44 PM
"Some" narcotic trafficing?!

Dude, there are meth labs up and down the border 10-15 miles from it, under the protection of the Mexican government and local police forces. I don't know the percentage of drugs smuggled though Mexico, but I've heard many people guesstimate it at above 50%.

No, I'm not talking about "Fortress America" (although I loved the game), but IMO, cutting down 50% on the trade would be an ENORMOUS and QUICK first step. Like I said, I am for decriminalization, but I also want that shiite taxed (in other words homegrown to the US).

I can understand your frustration. My previous hyperbole stems from mine. I'm just not so sure about a 2,000 mile wall. Maybe we could use a chunk of the tax dollars generated to help surveillance efforts?

FA is one heck of a good game. As I said in the wargame thread in the lounge, it's one of the best balanced I ever played. With competent players, you could never be sure which way the game was going to break until the final turns of the endgame. :thumb:

I was always kind of amused that even though the game came out in the early 1980's, the "Euro-Socialist Pact" leader on the cover looked a heck of a lot like a certain former leader of Iraq.

As far as the private security industries, hire them out to protect the border.

:hmmm: I like the idea!

unlurking
04-12-2006, 07:49 PM
DAMN!!!

You weren't supposed to quote until I fixed it! :cuss:

Anyways, as you mentioned we have a private security industry that would die with the decriminaliztion of drugs (even just cannabis would be huge). They are funded by the government. Let them keep their contracts, but tell them they now have to guard a ditch.

Personally, I think a large ditch would be easier to guard than a wall, and I've seen a ton of footage of areas where they have built cement canals along the border for this.

unlurking
04-12-2006, 07:51 PM
Yeah, FA and AA were a lot of fun, but ONLY if you had good opponents. For mindless gaming I loved crossbows and catapults (nothing like shooting crap at your cat when you're a kid) and Bloodbowl. Those didn't take 3 days to finish!

Boozer
04-12-2006, 08:08 PM
Yeah, FA and AA were a lot of fun, but ONLY if you had good opponents. For mindless gaming I loved crossbows and catapults (nothing like shooting crap at your cat when you're a kid) and Bloodbowl. Those didn't take 3 days to finish!

:spock: