Mexican authorities near the Pacific resort city of Acapulco discovered a hidden mass grave filled with what they believed to be victims of the country’s drug war, local media reported on Wednesday.
Authorities have dug at least 18 bodies out of the grave, newspapers El Universal and Milenio reported.
Mexican authorities jumped into action with this bold response:
Mexico on Wednesday welcomed a vote against the legalization of marijuana in the US state of California.
Oh. Right. If California had legalized marijuana, it might have caused Mexico to have some kind of drug war problems…
So just about every former Latin American leader has endorsed legalization. Is there a situation where Calderon could consider it?
President Felipe Calderon, who is leading a military crackdown on Mexico’s drug gangs, said before the vote that any kind of legalization would have to take place “integrally and globally.”
What does that mean? Has there been anything that has happened “integrally and globally” since Adam and Eve shared the apple?
funny how “integrally and globally†simply means US federal repeal of cannabis prohibition
What he means is that if California alone legalizes it, it won’t have much positive effect (and perhaps a short term negative effect) on Mexico. If the whole world magically legalized it however, then cartels would vanish.
Stupid, but I kind of see what he’s trying to say.
Dumbfounded.
Thanks again Pete.
This, along with the Holder BS, is probably responsible for Prop. 19 missing the mark. That and stupid frakking fear of the unknown.
“easier access would lead to more drug addicts.”
Cigarettes are sold everywhere. Yet tobacco consumption and addiction has fallen dramatically in California despite being totally legal for adults to buy and use.
I have never met a prohibitionist that can explain why.
Still angling for that lovely lethal ‘foreign aid’ to use on his own people, I see. “Plus ça change…” and all that.
“Is there a situation where Calderon could consider it?”
Yeah,
One week after he leaves office, he’ll probably board the L train, like his predecessors have. It’s unfortunate they don’t have to huevos to say so while they’re IN office! It’s only a question of how long he’s out of office before he hears the “All Aboard!”
It’s also interesting that ‘more addicts” is worse than “more bodies.” One class is alive and the other is dead. Economics don’t line up with that statement.
Actually, EZ, it does…in a very sick, parasitical way. ‘More addicts’ means they can continue to ask for and spend all that US taxpayer-supplied money on ‘treating’ them…and of course, get more war toys. A dead body is equivalent to the cost of the bullet(s) that killed them and a one-time funeral cost.
Not to mention the tacit Malthusian reason of population reduction; the more poor people get whacked, the less has to be spent on them…which is already extremely low, given the greed, corruption and excesses of the Mex political class.
Population control by mass murder via criminal methodologies tacitly supported by The State, while The State bemoans the horror and acts as if it were not a factor in the operation by blaming it on the narcos; neat trick.
Mass graves are just collateral damage we need to lock some more dopesmokers up before they sell to our children! We need more laws to create a golden utopia, more people incarcerated. We should put a big scarlet D on people who get arrested for drugs. They are subhumans anyway. Yes it is sarcastic but how scary is it that some actually think that way.
Pete asks:
“So just about every former Latin American leader has endorsed legalization. Is there a situation where Calderon could consider it?”
Yes, there is one situation where Calderon would consider legalization:
The minute he is out of office. Just like Bill Clinton, and the above-mentioned Latin Americans.
It begs the question – who is really in charge? The politicians, or the Military/Law Enforcement establishment?
whoops – sorry ezrydn, you beat me to it. Coffee shortage.
Dante, you’re close…very close. But it’s higher up the food chain.
It’s the multinational banks that want drug prohibition to continue. Without it, they’d have folded from the mess they created. All that blood money from prohibition kept them afloat while they sank everything – and everybody – else.
Who knows what Calderón really sees. He has to talk about state security, but Mexico also has a large financial stake in drug prohibition.
Calderón, as a sitting president, is about as likely to endorse cannabis legalization as are the greedy 215 industry types who voted against 19.
Clderon is as corrupt as any politician anywhere today. He goes after the “cartels’….yeah, right. He goes after cartels that compete with the Sinaloa cartel. He’s just like some corrupt US Congressman who funnels contracts to his favorite contractor in exchange for a seat on the board or a fat lobbying job.
After all, there is very little difference between the cartels and our defense corporations: the end results of both businesses are ultimately $$ and Bodies.
Calderone must be profiting himself from the cannabis black market. His position on cannabis makes no sense otherwise.
It’s a 62% reduction nationwide through the end of 2006. To vex them even further, point out that the peak of tobacco use was in 1963. It does make sense that the 1964 Surgeon General’s report marked the peak and turned the acceptability of tobacco use around.
Now ask them how they’ve been doing in reducing cannabis consumption since 1963. I haven’t actually found that statistic but suspect they haven’t reduced cannabis use much since 1963. Heck, it might have even increased by well over 1000%. Be prepared for some idiots who believe cannabis was invented in 1964 by an unholy alliance of the Beatles and Bob Dylan. Then later Cheech & Chong figured out how to increase potency by 20 to 50 times sometime in the early 1980s.
Oh I did mean to say I’m not sure how valid the tobacco statistics are when the subject is addictive MADs. Tobacco is addictive yes, but not mind altering. While I wouldn’t want to be proved correct or incorrect, I do believe that tobacco could be outlawed and it’s use dispatched to the graveyard of history with a legal prohibition of tobacco.
Tobacco isn’t harmful and either is nicotine in such small amounts. Cigarettes are dangerous with the chemical adulterants. Tobacco has been grown and used safely for thousands of years. The difference is tobacco isn’t fun so there is no real “pleasure” although it does have some relaxing qualities. I smoke camels because they quench the coughing from indoor buds. But the main reason is, tobacco has no competition from fossil fools, drug and booze corporations. Hemp is one of the main reasons for the lies about Ganja. More money would be lost to hemp clothing and nutritious seed and oil than from cigarettes. Besides it makes people sick. Sick people make drug companies big bucks. Same as pollution makes people sick. Why would they want to clean the environment and prevent sick profits? Ganja relieves the same as what drug stores sell. Plus a multi billion dollar drug war to perpetuate for the prison industrial complex. As stated, outlaw cigarettes and people might just quit and that’d be it. Then where are the profits? Just outsourcing jobs to India and China ain’t gonna butter the bread. Occasional police actions only go so far. The Ganjawar is a trillion dollar gem for the fascists. All this nonsense makes sense if you think of wasted taxes as a good thing to those receiving them.