Mexican drug lord thanks El Presidente Obama for cannabis prohibition

[Kudistos Megistos]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-henry-sterry/mexican-drug-lord-officia_b_179596.html

Joaquin Guzman, the first billionaire drug lord (as far as we know) has thanked El Presidente Obama and his predecessors for allowing him to follow in the footsteps of Al Capone and create an empire of crime based around puritan prohibition laws:

I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cajones to stand up to all the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say, Gracias amigos, I owe my whole empire to you.

Mexican president Felipe Calderon is claimed to have said to the US administration "Why don't they make this shit legal already! You're killing me here!".

Of course, there are far too many vested interests in the US for cannabis to ever be legalised.

[nfitc1]

Even if it were made free in the US, Mexico would still be illegally exporting it. You wouldn't want to actually PAY the US embargo taxes and levies if you could just do what you've BEEN doing, would you?

[Kudistos Megistos]

Even if it were made free in the US, Mexico would still be illegally exporting it. You wouldn't want to actually PAY the US embargo taxes and levies if you could just do what you've BEEN doing, would you?

I'm sure, but their market would shrink ever so slightly. I'm sure that a lot of those middle-class teenagers who smoke it would be much more comfortable buying it in a shop than going to da hood or wherever it is they buy it now. Just like prohibition of alcohol, ya know? Once they re-legalised it, the illegal business went away.

Mr Guzman would have to start doing protection rackets.

[Marc]

Of course, there are far too many vested interests in the US for cannabis to ever be legalised.

Please explain what you mean by vested interest.

I always saw this as an issue with little political gain to change while having major political damage with the conservative base of the country (for no good reason I might add.  Having this thing legalizzed and taxed to hell would bring in sizeable revenue).

[Kudistos Megistos]

Please explain what you mean by vested interest.

I always saw this as an issue with little political gain to change while having major political damage with the conservative base of the country (for no good reason I might add.  Having this thing legalizzed and taxed to hell would bring in sizeable revenue).

What I mean is that there are other industries that benefit from cannabis being illegal and therefore not providing as much competition as it could. I can see the alcohol industry suffering if it were legalised, and the cigarette industry would have to make some major changes. The latter has a famously powerful lobby, n'est-ce pas?

[Jenova's Witness]

If cannabis were legalized, hemp would be too (hemp is related to weed, but lacks significant amounts of the active ingredient).  Hemp can be used to cloth, paper, and a host of other things that wood and plastics are currently used for.  Some say that the reason weed was criminalized in the first place was that lumber barons were scared they would lose their fortunes, which they got by murdering people (mostly native americans, but occasionally the odd white person or ex-slave), stealing thier land, and then cutting down all the trees to make cheap paper so they could sell crappy books called "pulps".

That's one of the vested interests.  The others are anyone who would lose money if weed were legalized.  Not surprisingly, many of those groups are companies that supply law enforcement and military units with the equipment they use to (utterly fail at) interdict drugs.

[xLostWingx]

If marijuana was legalized, what companies would be in the best position to start growing and producing the stuff?  I'd have to guess the tobacco companies.  Shit, there would be Marlboro Menthol Joints etc.  By now, any reasons for not legalizing it are completely arbitrary.  The death dealers should see legalization as an opportunity, not a competitor.

But then again, you know if you smoke weed your liable to enter a psychotic state and rape and murder women and children in a drug-induced frenzy.  Oh wait...well...you might drive 35 MPH in a 45 MPH zone.  Nevermind the fact that they still prescribe oxycontin and morphine and you can buy Nyquil and Robitussin at the corner store, any of which are 100 times more toxic to your body than Marijuana and have 10,000 times the potential for abuse.

[jeffdamann]

Lol none of you smoke marijuana or know anything of counter-culture do you?

Mexican weed is HORRIBLE HORRIBLE H O R R I B L E ! ! ! ! It already has NO MARKET except for the skimpiest of all smokers( I know many people below the poverty line that would still opt for the expensive shit)

No major corporation would ever have a gold on the marijuana industry. Just wont happen. Marijuana is about quality.

You think Marlboro would put the same care as a Top Grower thats been doing this for 20 years? No way..... Lol if you knew anything about growing weed you would know its a SCIENCE. Marlboro simply would not have the experience to put out GREAT pot. OKAY pot sure.... anyone can do that. But great pot can only come from a true grower.

[Marc]

Sorry but I'm from Canada.  When I used to smoke weed, the quality was a 1000 times better than the shit we found in the US when on trips.  BC and Quebec are famous for their great quality weed and with good reason from what I could tell.

As for cigarette smoking going down if weed was legalized, I'd actually state the opposite.  Most people who smoke weed will cut it with tobacco to make it last longer and make it easier on the throat.  Plus have an "after-roach" cigarette as it supposedly deepens the buzz (it does according to my past experiences).

I know plenty of non-smokers who only smoked cigarettes when smoking weed, it's the same as alcool since both mixed together have a coumpoud effect.  Alcool sales could be impacted in some way as you usually drink less when stoned but I also found people were more likely to drink a few beers with a joint than without so it probably balances out.

It's all very anecdotal but still.

As for hemp, I've heard the stories too.  I wouldn't think any major industry in the US would be affected by it at this point though.  Clothing is pretty much made in third world countries now and I don't believe you could make hemp lumber could you ?  It was always pretty much about hemp paper and the paper industry in North America isn't doing so hot either last I checked ...  they're all closing down in my province anyway and moving god knows where.  Probably countries where there's less strict environement regulations.

I don't think there's any justifiable economic reason not to legalize weed anymore thinking about it.

Socially and health-wise is a whole other debate though but I think it should be.

[xLostWingx]

There are people that drink $10 1/2 gal. Vodka...and the vast majority of people smoking pot out there are not smoking high quality stuff.  I am certain that any major tobacco company could grow and sell packs of joints or spliffs, or better yet, they could just sell 1 lb. bags for $50* if it was commercialized.  The price to quality ratio wouldn't stay intact after legalization + commercialization; just cause it was $50* a lb. wouldn't mean it was dirt.  Aside from that, I think that these companies would be perfectly capable of growing high grade shit.  And even so, which do you think Johnnie Walker makes more money off of, cumulative Black Label sales, or cumulative Blue Label sales?

*Just a hypothetical number, don't treat it seriously.

And as far as "I was here and there shit sucked!" That's usually because you know the good hook ups in the area where you live, but if you go somewhere new, you're more likely to deal with some random dude dealing random weed.

[DLPB_]

I am not too sure that legalisation will help anything.  It may put a few dealers out of business but it will also mean more lung disease and more problems on the roads as ever increasing numbers of people take up the drug.  You are substituting 1 problem for another.

Cannabis is small beans.  The way you stop drug dealing (and I mean the top class drugs like Amphetamine/heroin or the ones who bring sh*t loads of cannabis into UK) is to execute the dealers. Like China does.

Of course, we are too soft for that.  Legalisaing a drug is simply saying you have failed to govern properly.  I suppose we should legalise heroin next and legalise murder too.  If you are legalising a drug to stop criminals, then you have failed to maintain law.

And legalising won't put them all out of business, far from it, it will mean black markets for th drug which will be cheaper than the tax the gov. shove on it.

I really fail to understand where this rosy picture of people dancing around in circles singing songs and clapping, holding hands, comes from when this argument of legalisation crops up.  It is short sighted.

[Kudistos Megistos]

more lung disease and more problems on the roads as ever increasing numbers of people take up the drug.

lolno 

Legalisation takes away the allure of the drug

Cannabis is small beans.  The way you stop drug dealing (and I mean the top class drugs like Amphetamine/heroin or the ones who bring sh*t loads of cannabis into UK) is to execute the dealers. Like China does.

Hardened and habitual criminals are missing the parts of the brain that tells them that they'll get caught. No penalty will act as a deterrent to people who don't think about the potential consequences of their actions.

And enjoy all the assorted legal problems that you'd have to deal with if you reintroduced the death penalty and applied it to organised (and therefore very wealthy) criminals.

Of course, we are too soft for that.  Legalisaing a drug is simply saying you have failed to govern properly.  I suppose we should legalise heroin next and legalise murder too.  If you are legalising a drug to stop criminals, then you have failed to maintain law.

Except the drug should never have been illegal in the first place. The governments who made it illegal are the ones who failed to govern properly.

Face-saving is the most destructive phenomenon in politics. Never admit that you were wrong! Continue with failed policies!

You should join the Labour party.

And legalising won't put them all out of business, far from it, it will mean black markets for th drug which will be cheaper than the tax the gov. shove on it.

Just like there are huge black markets for tax-free alcohol and cigarettes? Oh wait; they're relatively small in comparison. Most people are willing to pay taxes for booze and cigarettes, even poor people.

I really fail to understand where this rosy picture of people dancing around in circles singing songs and clapping, holding hands, comes from when this argument of legalisation crops up.  It is short sighted.

It comes from seeing the success in places where it has been legalised and where all your Daily Mail arguments have been proven wrong.

[Marc]

I actually agree with Kudistos on most of his points.  It's been statiscally proven that harsher sentences (in this case, death penalty) doesn't deter criminals.  Crime statistics don't go down with or without death penalty.

As for driving stoned, there are a few detectors that detect cannabis use based on saliva tests.  Don't know how accurate they are as I haven't heard them being used by law enforcement anywhere yet but there's no need for such a tech now in most of the world.  Legalize weed and you have instant demand from a bunch of police corps.

Also, it's not as if people aren't already driving stoned.  The amount of people who have smoked weed in their lives vs the amount of people who haven't around me is maybe 50 to 1.  And that's in all my social circles (family, friends, job, fellow school students when I was still in school).  The society here is definitely more accepting of weed than in the US but having it illegal is just stupid at this point and feeding money to organised crime.  Not that I believe this should be the main reason for it to be legalized though.  Taxes and freeing up law enforcement to actually pursue real crimes would be far more beneficial if you ask me.

I'm also not too sure health would be badly affected by legalization of weed.  It's actually been proven by medical research that weed has a protective agent where weed smokers actually have less incidence of lung cancer than most non smokers.  Protective compunds within THC is said to cause this.  There's far more throat cancer and schizofrenic incidence for long term users though so it's definitely not good for you but the amounts required would be like for alcoolics and liver syrosis here so it affects a minute % of the population as you'd need to be stoned 24/7 to start seeing those effects.  And since you need money to buy weed and you usually aren't great at your job when stoned out your mind ...

Best way to get stoned is by eating it though.  Did that once.  Oh god that was unpleasant.  And long.

[xLostWingx]

Except the drug should never have been illegal in the first place.

The same way cigarettes (in USA) say "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING:  Cigarettes kill you!" and the labels on Liquor Bottles say "Don't drink if your pregnant" and "Drinking alcohol impairs your ability to drive and causes health problems" the same types of warnings would be on the commercialized pot.  Not that these labels make a difference, but since we are using societal condonement as the basis for allowing the use of alcohol and tobacco, I don't see why Marijuana shouldn't make the cut.  If you come up with a rational arguement for outlawing Marijuana, you almost have to concede that Alcohol and Tobacco must also be outlawed - which probably isn't the worst position to take. However, I think people should be able to make their own choices concerning their own health unless it poses a public safety hazard, but what public threat does legalized marijuana pose?  Certainly nothing that hasn't already been permitted through other means.

-------------------------------------

If overall health of society is the goal, then keep it illegal, but be prepared to outlaw a million other substances, activities, etc.  Even if it is outrageously stupid and detrimental, society permits us to do a million other things that are equally stupid and detrimental to our health anyway.

[DLPB_]

The death penalty does deter, and at the least it makes sure dealers cant come out and do it again.  That's a fact.  Most dealers come out and carry on.  That's 1 thing the anti death penalty whiners cant argue with.

I'm also not too sure health would be badly affected by legalization of weed.  It's actually been proven by medical research that weed has a protective agent where weed smokers actually have less incidence of lung cancer than most non smokers.

And are much more likely to get numerous other diseases like Emphysema.  This idea that Cannabis smoking is good for you is as ridiculous as when they said same thing about Cigarette Smoking.  Not to mention most people will smoke cannabis WITH tobacco, and will develop habits FROM cannabis smoking because of it.  2 people in my family got their additions through this.

I can't fathom why anyone has this idea that putting large amounts of hot air mixed with thousands of chemicals into your lungs can be anything other than outrageously stupid and detrimental.  AS for that lung cancer claim, I am sure that research will find the opposite in years to come.  Cancer is caued by the damage of cells which eventually leads to mutation (more damage = more chance).  Cannabis smoking, logically, WILL raise cancer rates.  It does damage the lungs, this is a fact.

The only people I ever see defending cannabis use and legalisation, are the people who have deluded themselves into believing that Cannabis is good for them, and are themselves, the end user.

The sheer delusion on this matter is approaching psychotic. Hopefully that isn't from the over indulgence on their favourite drug. 

[Kudistos Megistos]

The only people I ever see defending cannabis use and legalisation, are the people who have deluded themselves into believing that Cannabis is good for them, and are themselves, the end user.

Well, I have some bad news for you!

I think it's unhealthy, like any psychoactive drug, but I still think it should be legal. There are worse drugs that are perfectly legal, and in any case, I think that people should be free to abuse their own bodies in any way they wish.

The death penalty does deter, and at the least it makes sure dealers cant come out and do it again.  That's a fact.  Most dealers come out and carry on.  That's 1 thing the anti death penalty whiners cant argue with.

Have fun catching them. And have fun when you eventually execute the wrong person.

[DLPB_]

yes the wrong one argument, the problem with that is, for every innocent person who is killed by accident, many more have died because of the criminal(s).  That's the ultimate flaw with the "wrong one" argument.

It assumes that 1 innocent person is worth all the innocents who are the victim of crime because there is no deterrent whatsoever, and nothing to stop reoffending.

And a way around this is to say "life means life" for all 1st degree murder and drug dealing.

Ohhh but no.. course not.  We cant do that either can we?  The poor criminals need their playstations and TV.  I take great comfort in knowing that this liberal experiment which has doomed my country will one day come to a sad end.  The death penalty will return and when it does, we are never goin' back again.

edit:

If you come up with a rational arguement for outlawing Marijuana, you almost have to concede that Alcohol and Tobacco must also be outlawed -

Tobacco should be outlawed yes.  Alcohol on other hand, in moderation, is not at all detrimental in comparison.  Tobacco is always detrimental and affects other people directly.  The only people who should be banned from Alcohol are the louts who can't handle it and have to binge drink 24/7.

There is a great power of socialising and a good time with alcohol if it is responsible.  I can't use that argument with Cannabis and Tobacco, since both are detrimental to health, even in small quantities.  Tobacco is also physically addictive.

[Marc]

The death penalty does deter, and at the least it makes sure dealers cant come out and do it again.  That's a fact.  Most dealers come out and carry on.  That's 1 thing the anti death penalty whiners cant argue with.

And are much more likely to get numerous other diseases like Emphysema.  This idea that Cannabis smoking is good for you is as ridiculous as when they said same thing about Cigarette Smoking.  Not to mention most people will smoke cannabis WITH tobacco, and will develop habits FROM cannabis smoking because of it.  2 people in my family got their additions through this.

I can't fathom why anyone has this idea that putting large amounts of hot air mixed with thousands of chemicals into your lungs can be anything other than outrageously stupid and detrimental.  AS for that lung cancer claim, I am sure that research will find the opposite in years to come.  Cancer is caued by the damage of cells which eventually leads to mutation (more damage = more chance).  Cannabis smoking, logically, WILL raise cancer rates.  It does damage the lungs, this is a fact.

The only people I ever see defending cannabis use and legalisation, are the people who have deluded themselves into believing that Cannabis is good for them, and are themselves, the end user.

The sheer delusion on this matter is approaching psychotic. Hopefully that isn't from the over indulgence on their favourite drug. 

As I said, it does raise throat cancer by huge amounts as well as cause scyzophrenia and paranoia if you're a heavy long time user so I'm not saying its good for you.  I actually quit years ago because it raises your heart rate like crazy, saps your energy and isn't great for concentration.  Will never touch the stuff again in my life.  However, I believe cigarettes are much worse than cannabis as I've never seen anyone some two packs a days worth ... *has flashback of camping trips*  actually scratch that, nobody somking two packs a day's worth on a daily basis.  Point is, THC has a protective effect on lungs by binding to some receptors in the lungs that would otherwise bind to chemical agents that could cause cancer or somesuch.  Look it up, it's pretty well documented.

And as for death penalty, I'm too lazy to dig out statistics but there were multiple statistical studies that proved violent crime rates weren't affected by the death penalty.  Some of the most violent states in the US carry the death penalty.  Not an effective detterent when people don't think they'll be caught.  The punishment must be severe enough to deter for a detterent to be effective but life in prison seems to have as bad an effect as death penalty.  And multiple studies have shown that unless you significantly increase the risk of people being caught (law enforcement, sting operations, double agents, etc in this case) than even stricter punishement makes no difference.

Drinking and driving is actually a great example.  When fines and jail time increases, it actually doesn't reduce the amount of offenders drinking and driving significantly because people have no fear of getting caught because there's not enough controls (except maybe during the Holidays).  A sanction is only effective if you get caught.

[Kudistos Megistos]

yes the wrong one argument, the problem with that is, for every innocent person who is killed by accident, many more have died because of the criminal(s).  That's the ultimate flaw with the "wrong one" argument.

It assumes that 1 innocent person is worth all the innocents who are the victim of crime because there is no deterrent whatsoever, and nothing to stop reoffending.

If we stopped worrying about the "wrong one", we'd set a very dangerous precedent. It should be obvious that saying that innocent people can be executed by the state "for the greater good" might lead to a few problems.

I take great comfort in knowing that this liberal experiment which has doomed my country will one day come to a sad end.  The death penalty will return and when it does, we are never goin' back again.

I can only think of one plausible scenario in which the death penalty could be reintroduced here, and I very much doubt you'd like it.

[Marc]

yes the wrong one argument, the problem with that is, for every innocent person who is killed by accident, many more have died because of the criminal(s).  That's the ultimate flaw with the "wrong one" argument.

It assu
Tobacco should be outlawed yes.  Alcohol on other hand, in moderation, is not at all detrimental in comparison.  Tobacco is always detrimental and affects other people directly.  The only people who should be banned from Alcohol are the louts who can't handle it and have to binge drink 24/7.

There is a great power of socialising and a good time with alcohol if it is responsible.  I can't use that argument with Cannabis and Tobacco, since both are detrimental to health, even in small quantities.  Tobacco is also physically addictive.

Alcool is far more damaging to the body than weed.  Even in small quantities.  Someone having 5 drinks a day vs 5 joints a day will be in much worse shape when he's 60 than the one smoking weed.  And that's coming from somebody who drinks every now and then but never smokes anymore.

[DLPB_]

5 pints is not comparable by volume to 5 joints (and again joints can lead directly to tobacco addition)., That argument isn't fair at all.  Responsible drinking is by far better than "responsible" weed smoking, because such a thing does not exist.  Most people out for a drink won't approach that in 1 night (binge drinkers will of course)., How much weed does someone pump into their lungs in a party?

Not a good comparison at all. 

=====edit

I have a drink every week or 2, and usually around 4 pints.  If I did the same with cannabis, I would be addicted to cigs already, and I am betting my lungs would be in a bad state.  Which is worse?

=======

And I will wager you that when (because it will be back, you can trust me on that) the death penalty does return here, most crime falls like a ton of bricks.  Comparing different states and different countries is very deceptive statistics, and is the reason why Anti-Death Penalty people use them.  There are a ton of variables and reasons why the statistics don't work when you do that.

The ultimate argument that no one can argue with is that once a criminal is dead, he will never reoffend again.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Guise, I think we should stop disagreeing with Seifer. I foresee another "incident" happening if his lack of knowledge or critical thinking ability keeps being pointed out, and the mods will ban us for "baiting" him by not telling him that he's right.

[DLPB_]

Kud, if you are wondering why you aren't getting direct responses from me, it is because you have been on ignore.  I do that in this section from now on with regards to yourself.

I had a look at your last  post (can't help the odd peep) to see if you had mended your ways but sadly found another ad hominem.  So you will remain on my ignore list until you learn.

[Kudistos Megistos]

Kud, if you are wondering why you aren't getting direct responses from me, it is because you have been on ignore.  I do that in this section from now on with regards to yourself.

I had a look at your last  post (can't help the odd peep) to see if you had mended your ways but sadly found another ad hominem.  So you will remain on my ignore list until you learn.

Oh lulz, Seifer puts anyone who disagrees with him on his ignore list. And can't help but peek to see whether anyone has said anything. So he'll probably read this.

It shows how little interest he has in debate

[xLostWingx]

I can't help but picture a totalitarian regime whose flag reads "Do what is healthy for you...or else"