Mexico's Fox predicts backlash in drug war

[Osborn F Enready]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060316/...exico_drugs_dc

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - "Mexico will begin extraditing drug lords wanted in the United States within weeks and expects a violent backlash from the powerful cartels", President Vicente Fox said on Wednesday. Fox told Reuters the legal process of handing over traffickers on the U.S. government's list had already begun. "I am confident and convinced that very soon, and I am talking about weeks, we will start the first extraditions of these leaders," Fox said. "I am sure that will provoke additional violence. ... They will try to retaliate," he said. "It could be judges, it could be government officials, but we will be ready." The United States has been pressing for the extradition of drug kingpins for years but Mexican legislation made it difficult. Despite hundreds of arrests and record seizures on both sides of the border, drugs have continued to pour into the United States and cocaine, heroin and marijuana are widely available in American cities. In its latest report on international drug trafficking, issued last month, the U.S. State Department said between 70 and 90 percent of the cocaine destined for the United States passed through Mexico.

The madness of the bigot, racist, corporatist Drug War rages on, and more innocent lives will probably be cost in more unrest, more anger, more violence in yet another part of the world thanks to U.S. backwards ass policy.

I find it funny Fox cites Columbia as being a "success" in the "war on drugs".

[rmnunez]

The Fox administration has made a great effort in fighting the drug cartels and accomplished a lot, but there are consequences. Across Mexico drug kingpins are battling each other for control over decimated strategic sectors where they produce and move their product.

[SteveA]

I admit I'm skeptical that this is only about drugs and could be partly why problems are expected. It would be interesting to see what claims are made in protest of these arrests.

[Osborn F Enready]

I seriously question how much we will hear about it Steve.

It will probably be underground news, as always, as the only ones with the stones to present the "anti-drug war" perspective.

I can't believe how easily people accept the justification of force over drugs. It just shows the depth of misinformation as to how these cartels became "cartels" in the first place.

I will guarantee right now, regardless of the number of busts, the number of people arrested, drugs will still be imported through, grown, sold, used and carried through and in Mexico and the United States. How can I say that with such confidence? Anybody could if they looked at the history of the drug laws.

It also shows how much GW is like Daddy, with a major intrest in the CIA's drug war. It also shows another reason Bush and Fox get along so well.



Hey Munez, what is the History, or background of Vicente Fox?

[Osborn F Enready]

Its funny that Fox called Columbia such a success, because obviously Bush feels it is still a National Emergency.

Executive Order: Notice Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Significant Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia On October 21, 1995, by Executive Order 12978, the President declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia, and the extreme level of violence, corruption, and harm such actions cause in the United States and abroad. The order blocks all property and interests in property that are in the United States or within the possession or control of United States persons or foreign persons listed in an annex to the order, as well as of foreign persons determined to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia. The order similarly blocks all property and interests in property of foreign persons determined to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, the narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the order, or persons determined to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to the order. The order also prohibits any transaction or dealing by United States persons or within the United States in such property or interests in property. Because the actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and to cause an extreme level of violence, corruption, and harm in the United States and abroad, the national emergency declared on October 21, 1995, and the measures adopted pursuant thereto to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond October 21, 2004. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia. This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE, October 19, 2004

[rmnunez]

I'm skeptical that this is only about drugs and could be partly why problems are expected.

I'm intrigued, hypothesize please, what do you think is the ulterior motive behind the "war on drugs"?

It would be interesting to see what claims are made in protest of these arrests.

I agree, its why I ask.

It will probably be underground news, as always, (are) the only ones with the stones to present the "anti-drug war" perspective.

It must be underground, I've never heard of this "anti-drug war" perspective mentioned.

I can't believe how easily people accept the justification of force over drugs. It just shows the depth of misinformation as to how these cartels became "cartels" in the first place.

Drug cartels are like the mafia, but without as much ethnicity and focused on a single criminal field. Like the mafia in the US, cartels buy support from political figures for their control over enforcement authorities, it happens everywhere there is drug traffic.

regardless of the number of busts, the number of people arrested, drugs will still be imported through, grown, sold, used and carried through and in Mexico and the United States. How can I say that with such confidence? Anybody could if they looked at the history of the drug laws.

Simple economics would yield the same conclusion, its just the old law of "supply and demand", until enforcement in major markets is so harsh demand dries up, there will be tremendous pressure from outside the market to supply it. Unfortunately the major market is the US and as they add years to their sentencing guidelines, cartels will grow, their expenses will climb and the number and importance of the political figures they bribe will as well.

Fox's background is the epitome of a critical lefty's rant, he was a successful businessman and CEO for Coca-Cola in Mexico.

[Osborn F Enready]

Rmunez said: I'm intrigued, hypothesize please, what do you think is the ulterior motive behind the "war on drugs"?

I say:
It provides untraceable funds for things like supplying arms to other nations we don't want to claim "official support", it allows the growth and prosperity of the black market, it plays as good propaganda for removing more rights of individuals, provides a atmosphere of fear to help keep police funding up, backs a large part of local economies now on it for several years, occupies a majority of the lower class unemployed and keeps them quiet since they can earn large amounts of money by being a small part of a big chain, it unites all global gangs in one way of easier traceability because it is THE main thing that fuels the black market thereby being its own worse cause and effect.

Try to understand the history of illegal drugs, and you will quickly see the law has been used to manipulate the market, for large American corporations of the time, not for fear of public wellness or moral "rightness". The black market is only in existence because laws are trying to stop people from doing things people throughout history have shown to have desire for, a medical necessity for, an option of a FREE MAN to choose what HE CONSUMES knowing full well that responsisbility is not negated due to sobriety as the government would lead you to belive is an actual excuse of validity.

Rmunez said: I agree, its why I ask.

I say:
Do you think a man has a right to decide what he will, or will not consume? Is it the auspice of government to dictate what products of the earth man can use to satiate his basal, or societal influenced desires?

If it weren't for laws against marijuana and cocaine, the "designer drug" market would have NEVER started. If drugs were legally accessible, and people held accountable for their use and actions under the influence, this wouldn't be a problem at all.

Rmunez said: It must be underground, I've never heard of this "anti-drug war" perspective mentioned.

I say:
Its called a basic right of man, to consume what he desires to be fit, healthy and in good mental perspective according to HIS beliefs if he, and the earth can provide it. Hemp and marijuana are natural crops, that have a variety of uses. 160,000 industrial uses for hemp, and several medical and recreational uses for marijuana, with less harmful effects than alchohol as recreational drugs go. They have shown the human brain has a receptor site SPECIFICALLY for THC, which means in some way the body is NATURALLY capable of taking in, using and breaking down this material.

Rmunez said: Drug cartels are like the mafia, but without as much ethnicity and focused on a single criminal field. Like the mafia in the US, cartels buy support from political figures for their control over enforcement authorities, it happens everywhere there is drug traffic.

I say:
You are right and wrong. It happens everywhere there is ILLEGAL drug traffic, and by their ILLEGALITY the price is driven up for the DEMAND, which allows a SUBSTANTIAL PROFIT TO BE MADE BY THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO RISK THEIR WELL BEING FOR A SHORT TIME, TO MAKE A LONG TERM PROFIT. The demand is so large, it is beyond the scope or ability of enforcement agencies to control, nor should they. They should open the market legally, and enforce it through the same means all other legal products are that can cause intoxication or death from use. (marijuana has never caused a death from toxicity, or overdose) The drug war is an attack by corporations and politicians, against people of all nations.

You want to remove the cartels, the INNOCENT death, the needless deaths caused by police against "wrong targets", legalize drugs with reasonable methods like alchohol is now.

Rmunez said: Simple economics would yield the same conclusion, its just the old law of "supply and demand", until enforcement in major markets is so harsh demand dries up, there will be tremendous pressure from outside the market to supply it. Unfortunately the major market is the US and as they add years to their sentencing guidelines, cartels will grow, their expenses will climb and the number and importance of the political figures they bribe will as well.

I say:
The funniest part is when you just said that the market could become so fierce, demand would dry up. LOL. Yea, sure.

Any bonehead could grow pot in their own home, our in their own yard. If it wasn't for the profits made from pot, they would have NEVER started smuggling cocaine, heroine, opium.

Once the crackdown came on smuggling, pot was left out in the field because of the profits that could be made (per/lb, per square foot of shipping space) from cocaine, heroine, opium. That was when a majority of pot started coming from Mexico, and Canada, since they are so close and only cross one border.

The drug problem is a DIRECT RESULT of the war on drugs, and the illegalization of drugs.

Want to remove the drug problem? Legalize and regulate it.

[rmnunez]

This "war on drugs" is an international problem, legalization will only work if its done in the US, legalizing drugs in Mexico or elsewhere doesn't solve the problem if in the US they remain illegal.

The legalization of drugs, their use or supply is a different matter. There are fundamental issues that need to be addressed. Some drugs cause a physiological dependancy so that the consumer's will or capacity to effectuate free choice in their use may be hampered. Some drugs can cause harmful physical effects of incalculable value. If the government legalizes the supply of drugs it would in some sense acquire a liability for harmful use (as with cigarrettes). Drugs, due to dangers in misuse, would have to be graded as to potency and restricted to adults, forbidden to pregnant women, maybe limited in dosages. This sort of regulation lends itself to fiscalization and this in turn to some sense that if the government allows such a product, its use is facilitated or even encouraged. If a mother brought suit against the governmental institution enforcing a permissive drug policy that enabled access by her son to a known physiological dependancy-causing drug, what defence could be raised?

Vast sums could be raised taxing drugs. Maybe you'd anticipate a generous allotment for rehabilitation clinics and treatment centers, public education campaigns and other efforts could also be funded, but would it be moral to calculate anticipated revenues, put the stuff on the market and figure whatever minds (or lives) are lost to overdoses and such is just part of the cost of doing business?

[Osborn F Enready]

RmNunez said: This "war on drugs" is an international problem, legalization will only work if its done in the US, legalizing drugs in Mexico or elsewhere doesn't solve the problem if in the US they remain illegal.

I say:
I agree, hence the urge or DRIVE to force other nations to comply with the governments illegal drug laws. They actually have a goal of ERADICATING the hemp species entirely. This is absolute madness, and counter productive to human health and well being.

RmNunez said: The legalization of drugs, their use or supply is a different matter. There are fundamental issues that need to be addressed. Some drugs cause a physiological dependancy so that the consumer's will or capacity to effectuate free choice in their use may be hampered. Some drugs can cause harmful physical effects of incalculable value. If the government legalizes the supply of drugs it would in some sense acquire a liability for harmful use (as with cigarrettes). Drugs, due to dangers in misuse, would have to be graded as to potency and restricted to adults, forbidden to pregnant women, maybe limited in dosages. This sort of regulation lends itself to fiscalization and this in turn to some sense that if the government allows such a product, its use is facilitated or even encouraged.

I say:
I think you are mixing too much together to understand the problem effectively. What matters is the rights of man, what is secondary is the ability of government, and what is third is public perception based on facts, not propaganda.

Some drugs that I mentioned, such as Heroine, Cocaine, are very harmful and addictive, and should be held to the same method of enforcement as prescription drugs are now, but prescription drugs should not be made so inaccessible to the adult, conscensual public.

Proof of how ridiculous these laws are, are shown daily by the explosion in Oxycodone, Percosets, Xanax and others into the market. RIGHT NOW, viable patients are being denied pain killing medications because the doctors are afraid to be accused of "overprescription" of pain meds, by the federal watchdogs. At the same time they have this draconian, authoritarian laws and enforcement, they have a growing exponentially larger problem. This is PROOF that their concept is not only wrong in theory, but COUNTER productive, worsening the problem.

Education of FACTS, not lies( which helped lead to this ), is one place to start.
As of now, the governments can't even get past this point, but most people like me say that is by design, and not by simple process of result of attempt and failing.

RmNunez said: If a mother brought suit against the governmental institution enforcing a permissive drug policy that enabled access by her son to a known physiological dependancy-causing drug, what defence could be raised?

I say:
In todays courts, or a Constitutional Court? In todays court you can sue because the HOT coffee you ordered was actually HOT, and caused a burn. We have long ago left the rights of the individual at the sidelines, in a joke of an attempt to try to please only the "majority" instead of a SUPER majority.

RmNunez said: Vast sums could be raised taxing drugs. Maybe you'd anticipate a generous allotment for rehabilitation clinics and treatment centers, public education campaigns and other efforts could also be funded, but would it be moral to calculate anticipated revenues, put the stuff on the market and figure whatever minds (or lives) are lost to overdoses and such is just part of the cost of doing business?

I say:
You seem to think the government bears a responsibility for peoples individual choices and actions?

If Johnny is an adult, and he (DECIDES) he wants to take drugs, he will. No law, no amount of reason, no screening, no attempt will stop them, as the endless lines at prisons made up of people like Johnny attest. The only way to keep Johnny from taking drugs is to show him what bad drugs can do while he is still young and impressionable enough to understand both sides if explained correctly, as well as the truth about its effects on the body, the mind, the quality of life of the person involved. A person must want something, to get it.

I have smoked pot, and I find it is THE best cure for my desire to temporarily remove the "stress" of daily life, and allow my mind to relax as I find intrest in doing simple, enjoyable things like reading, watching television, playing a game, doing a hobby. It clears the mind of all the nagging little problems we torture ourselves with daily, and allows for a short respite of focus on something that is in the moment, pleasureable, and relaxing.

Some people use alchohol for this, but alchohol does not DO this for me, it does the opposite. Alchohol makes me spike from anxious to tired, with a moody swing in the middle. It gives me a headache, and occasionally hurts my sensitive teeth if drinking liquor. It clogs my nose, and makes me feel generally bloated and clogged. Not something I think of when I want to relax and de-stress.

The hyocrisy is that alchohol is much more damaging to the body, the mind, and the life of the individual than pot or hemp ever COULD be.

The problem is, the government tries to put marijauana and hemp in the same "threat" matrix as heroine, opium, coca, and it is NOTHING like any of those in the least bit, except that they too are natural products of the earth.

I think that we must address this issue, and finally, people are starting too, but the government still seeks to go the opposite direction even against findings in the science and medical industries, and hundreds of years of history proving them wrong.

There is no lawsuit when a person hurts themself, by choice.
There is a lawsuit when a person violates the rights of another, whether under the influence of a drug or sober.
There is no lawsuit against the government, since the governments job is not to protect the PEOPLE from themselves.

Drug laws must be exposed for what they are, which is bad logic, based on bad science and bigotry, perpetrated upon the people through corrupt coercion by players both elected and private.

[rmnunez]

I don't understand the problem Osborn, can't get over the notion addiction would impair volition. I also get a strong sense of endorsement from regulation so that prescription-like procedures imply liability. The tendency to sue in the US may be an aberration, but it is an inescapable feature which would be foreseably applied if drugs were legalized. The notion a bartender is liable for a customer's DUI accident is well-grounded in easily-grasped concepts which involve the temporary impairment of his customer due to the bartender's conduct. Analogy is an accepted argument at law and here the analogy is plain; the government legalizing drugs would be the bartender, the DUIed customer an addict who got that way with government-endorsed prescriptions.

[Osborn F Enready]

RMNunez said: I don't understand the problem Osborn, can't get over the notion addiction would impair volition.

I say:
I am not saying there is not danger of that in certain cases. I am saying that is an individual choice, an individual ability, and an individual level of punishment required.

RMNunez said: I also get a strong sense of endorsement from regulation so that prescription-like procedures imply liability.

I say:
I don't think prescription should imply liability except in the case of the doctor applying the right drug to the right ailments. A doctor shoud be held accountable if he prescribes the wrong drug, for a diagnosed ailment. A doctor should not be held accountable for patients abuse of drugs prescribed, as once the prescription leaves his hand, it is in the hands of an individual of legal age, and that person then takes FULL responsibility for that drug once issued to THEM.

RMNunez said: The tendency to sue in the US may be an aberration, but it is an inescapable feature which would be foreseably applied if drugs were legalized.

I say:
I agree. The part where we differ is that this aberration you speak of is only existing because of the history of the federal laws over-reach in many cases, and in some the states over-reach. This is due to multiple interpretations of the Constitution being taught, allowed, and deemed "valid". I feel if drugs were legalized in the U.S., it is highly likely once that takes place, these over-reach issues would soon be addressed, since usually one supporter would support the others fight, they are almost identical, if they aren't identical.

This is all about the rights of man, taking into account any application of government, or lack of it. This is about the fundamental foundation of our nation, not simply a sub-argument thereof.

RMNunez said: The notion a bartender is liable for a customer's DUI accident is well-grounded in easily-grasped concepts which involve the temporary impairment of his customer due to the bartender's conduct.

I say:
In YOUR opinion, which happens to concur with the new revised interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, of which you are not held liable to as a resident in Mexico? The point is, the argument may be accepted by ONE side of the Constitutional interpretation, but, which interpretation is legal? Only the original writers intended interpretation, which that argument falls on its face, in that light.

A man walks into a bar of his own volition (sober or drunk). HE then as a citizen, subject to that private establishments rules, and the rules of the state and nation, has certain rights that are inalienable, but some that are curtailed due to his presence being in a private establishment, only at the "allowance" of that private owner.

The owner is in possession of intoxicating substances, which he sells at a price to a willing, non-coerced consumer of their own free will, at a mutually agreed to price. At any time, the owner of the bar, retains the right to throw that person from his property, for any reason.

The owner has the obligation under the law, to be responsible for his actions. His responsibility ends when he asks the customer if he is aware of how much he has consumed, and if he was truly worried, he could have all his patrons sign a waiver of all responsibilities from lawsuit for serving them intoxicating substances, because those substances were only provided at the customers demand, knowing full well beforehand, the effects of the substance on their judgement and abilities. Most bartenders trusted the Bill of Rights to speak for itself, so didn't worry about the waiver idea I guess.

The customer is a willing consumer, and is the "demand" side of this "supply-demand" equation entered into of free will on both sides. If they are the consumers of an intoxicant, and they are aware that the product is indeed an intoxicant, it is THEIR sole responsibility to ensure they are able to consume within reason, or not consume in public, while their own judgement could risk others, putting them in jeapordy of intoxicated judgement affecting their interaction and understanding of rights of the individual.

Simply being intoxicated, does not excuse liability incurred due to bad judgement made UNDER that intoxication.

If people consistently break laws, sober or intoxicated, they are recognized as habitual offenders and pay the price accordingly, with each additional sentence. There is no need for a battle of pre-emption, other than to EDUCATE adults, and children in the ACTUAL uses, dangers, and ills of all forms of drug use, prescription and non-prescription, legal and illegal, for recreation and medical use.

RMNunez said: the government legalizing drugs would be the bartender, the DUIed customer an addict who got that way with government-endorsed prescriptions.

I say:
Read my above post, and notice how your "accepted" interpretation of rights falls short in so many areas as applied to your analogy?

[rmnunez]

Advocacy for heretofore criminal drug use is not what this thread is about, this is a different matter. Although the volitional issue in drug use is an individualized problem, the government has been traditionally regarded as responsible for the will of those whose capacity is limited like children or the impaired. Doctors are licensed by the government which vouches for their competence and the safety of their training and controls their capacity to prescribe. This is not about the rights of man, its about the rights of some, whose volition may even be impaired, as well as of those who are concerned over the delivery of sometimes dangerous mind-altering substances in society.

The concern expressed by Fox relates to the anticipated reaction from criminal drug cartels as Mexican efforts to combat illicit narcotics trade heat up. Legalizing drugs in the US would certainly remove any threat from criminal drug cartels, but its a highly unlikely development.

[Osborn F Enready]

RMNunez said: Advocacy for heretofore criminal drug use is not what this thread is about, this is a different matter.

I say:
You are ADDRESSING THE PERSON WHO STARTED THE THREAD #^#@%#$$!! Who knows more about what MY THREAD IS ABOUT, me or you?

You exhibit the exact same mentality of those I despise as enemies, and I see you also happen to be a part of the problem, (thinking you know better for me, than I )as a Mexican Sheriff espousing the views you do, without the willingness to adress the full depth of YOUR responsibilities as a law enforcer, which is to ensure the LAW is JUST that your enforcing.

Great job dropping the ball.

Guess some puppets don't care who is pulling their strings, eh?

RMNunez said: Although the volitional issue in drug use is an individualized problem, the government has been traditionally regarded as responsible for the will of those whose capacity is limited like children or the impaired.

I say:
Who is ultimately responsible for a child? The parents, not the government. The government can find the parents guilty for not being responsible for the childs safety, but the government is not the "responsible entity" for the children, or the impaired. They merely rule to ensure that those children and impaired peoples rights aren't ignored, or treated differently due to their PHYSICAL or MENTAL impairment.

RMNunez said: Doctors are licensed by the government which vouches for their competence and the safety of their training and controls their capacity to prescribe.

I say:
You assume because I think a system of prescription fits in to the Rights of the individual, and the Constitution, I am acceptant of the system we currently have, and support it. I do not, and I do not think it is Constitutional for a government to deny the right to doctors to prescribe what could be useful to treating the ailments of the individual.

RMNunez said: This is not about the rights of man, its about the rights of some, whose volition may even be impaired, as well as of those who are concerned over the delivery of sometimes dangerous mind-altering substances in society.

I say:
Totally disagree with your summation, analogy and perception as taught, or formed.

RMNunez said: The concern expressed by Fox relates to the anticipated reaction from criminal drug cartels as Mexican efforts to combat illicit narcotics trade heat up. Legalizing drugs in the US would certainly remove any threat from criminal drug cartels, but its a highly unlikely development.

I say:
I am not saying it was likely from our nation, AS IT IS NOW. IT won't be as it is now for long though, so don't get used to anything. The Kurds learned that lesson at an extreme cost, will it take that from you too? U.S policy changes as do all countries policy, and sometimes bad policy exists for an extended period. Do you support Fox in his support of the U.S. War on Drugs Nunez?

[rmnunez]

You are ADDRESSING THE PERSON WHO STARTED THE THREAD #^#@%#$$!! Who knows more about what MY THREAD IS ABOUT, me or you?

The thread title you use refers to Mexico and initiaitives by president Fox in the war on drugs, this is why I find misguided its use for a debate on the rights of man relating to mind-altering substances. This is a periferal issue, people who think drug use is some sort of inalienable right would take issue with any policy to combat illicit drug traffic, not with Mr. Fox or Mexico's prospects in so doing.

I see you also happen to be a part of the problem, (thinking you know better for me, than I )

Of course I support Fox's efforts in the war on drugs, I admire the successes of his forces and commend them for the daily risks taken in the interdiction of drug traffic in Mexico and abroad. You should know, if you have any interest in the subject, that Mexico is a stallwart suporter of every US initiative against illicit drug trafficking. However, this has nothing to do with any legal status of mine, either in Mexico or elsewhere.

Who is ultimately responsible for a child? The parents, not the government.

The state's obligation to act in the best interest of minors or other volitionally-impaired is not subordinate to their parents, custodians or whoever the state recognizes as in loco parentis.

You assume because I think a system of prescription fits in to the Rights of the individual, and the Constitution, I am acceptant of the system we currently have

People who advocate access to addictive drugs by the volitionally-impaired under a mistaken perception this could be an exercise of free will are not likely to accept much in the regulatory system which licenses physicians and regulates prescriptions. This too, is only tangentially related to US-Mexican narcotraffic (some united statians buying in bulk and without prescriptions at the border).

US policy changes as do all countries policy, and sometimes bad policy exists for an extended period.

Yes, in some narcotics-induced state we would witness how, overcoming their own addictive dependency, drug users would be able to obtain and consume the hallucinogen of their choice mindful of their rights. I suppose prices would drop, making the stuff much more accesible, like cigarrettes or candies, wonder whether crime would also magically disappear, will there be strawberry fields and rivers of chocolate too?

[Osborn F Enready]

You're in denial Munez

The drug war has failed, will fail.

You hear what you want, and are loyal to the Bushman for the rest.

[rmnunez]

But how about the likelyhood Fox's efforts against drugs will yield a backlash?

It doesn't seem like that would be the response from the general public in Mexico. If there was a backlash from the general public in the US against Fox's "drug war" efforts I suppose he might moderate, it would depend.

A backlash from the drug cartels is already in evidence. In border towns police chiefs are under constant threat, they have to move escorted in armoured cars and still get executed, often within hours of taking office. Those tunnels they keep digging up, military border crossing incidents and drug interdictions are reported almost daily. This is a sign either the volume is growing and they are getting reckless or that cartels are losing their grip.

The Fox administration suggests strong military and federal law-enforcement efforts in the war on drugs have destabilized some cartels whose top figures are in jail and often facing extradition and decades of prison time in the US. The cartels are apparently covering their casualties with new guys or usurping the markets each others’ top guys previously controlled. In some locales the law-enforcement connections are sundered, new guys roll into town and the chief gets blown away, sometimes the inverse applies. There have been cases of police officers within the same jurisdiction doing battle on either side of competing drug cartels. The federales come in and pick up the pieces.

I suspect this may continue, there will be some consolidation and we may lose a couple of the smaller regional outfits. It is inconceivable all the Mexican drug cartels together could present any serious challenge to the military, but I also suspect there is some uncoordinated military collusion in large scale drug trafficking.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well, I predict protests and anger in the U.S. over these extraditions from all but party loyalists and police state hopefuls.

I am also watching as the U.S. tries to Crucify Mark Emery from Canada, because he sells pot seeds. (boogidy boogidy boogidy)

I am also watching how they are treating Columbia.

I am also watching the lines to prison grow as non-violent, drug users are being arrested as "criminals" when the only people they hurt is themselves.

Nice of society to kick them while they are down. Great job, really Christian of them.

[rmnunez]

I predict protests and anger in the US over these extraditions from all but party loyalists and police state hopefuls.

What extraditions are you refering to? I haven't heard of any US captives getting delivered to Mexico (other than those poor undocumenteds who get routinely delivered). In the war on drugs, Mexico is extraditing (sending to the US as captives) prisoners wanted in the US to face narcotics charges, you think they have some sort of public or popular appeal in the US? Which cartel bosses lieutenants do you think will rally popular support in opposition to his extradition?

I am also watching how they are treating Columbia.

Its Colómbia

Is discretionary drug-use a Christian value, would Christ have used drugs, which?