Fear, senseless violence, and shitty drugs
nsfwcorp.com
nsfwcorp.com
Is hard to tell how, but I think the problem is beyond the drugs is social, cultural and political, all of that combine did the big problem we have.
I agree that, even if the drug factor completely disappeared, it is unlikely the problems would disappear. On the other hand, having huge amounts of drug money flowing through can only massively exacerbate the problem.
This is could be why the US gov has allegedly worked out deals with the Sinaloa (as Zeta presence in the US could be disruptive and needlessly violent people can be a nuisance to work with):
http://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-the-us-works-with-ca...
And why the head of the Zetas was recently killed by the military:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/09/world/americas/mexico-zetas-ca...
And why a fairly complimentary piece about the Sinaloa's business practices appeared this summer in the New York Times (revealing they use age-old methods of achieving internal stability such as intermarriage between families of senior cartel members):
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/17/magazine/how-a-mexican-dru...
It's interesting how little coverage the US media gives the situation in Mexico. Then again, the US media currently gives very little coverage to its own war(s).
European countries with where recreational drugs are still illegal are generally abuse less drugs because they have less income inequality. Even when you have only a few euros, you can afford to go to university and lead a pretty comfortable life.
This may all change with mass unemployment and poverty austerity will cause, although. I really hope this will not be a race to the bottom.
Cheapest bread is .5-.8e, a cheap room is 200e/mth, take out meal is 5-10e and a beer costs 2-3e. Your student job easily pays you 10e/h.
My friends that are middle and lower class don't do drugs, although they do drink a considerable amount of alcohol.
I went to high school in the city. It was common for kids to smoke weed after class and came to school drunk. As for the kids who went to school in the upper middle class town I grew up in, their problems included ODing on heroin. The kids that smoked weed might not have the most balanced careers, but that is a whole lot better than being dead because you ODed on heroin.
Of course that is all anecdotal. However, I think it is a major stretch to believe drug abuse has something to do with not making enough money.
The drug problem needs to be fixed first with ending prohibition. After that happens the vast resources being spent antagonizing a war can be redirected to figuring out how to fix the core problem -- people being more concerned about getting high than what the rest of their life is going to look like.
In the US, the poor live quite comfortably. Even people with income of zero have consumption of about $20k/year.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/ce/standard/2009/income.txt
For comparison, Hungary has a GDP per capita of $21k, the Czech Republic of $26k, France and the UK of $35k.
Further, inequality in the US is higher mainly because the rich earn more. That doesn't cause the life of the poor to suck, unless they get jealous or something.
Uh what? That individuals consume some amount of resources to live doesn't mean that they live comfortably. There is going to be some kind of minimum amount you have to pay to live, as you can't get everything for free even if you are homeless. That even those with the lowest incomes use up resources equivalent to $20k per year doesn't mean that those people are living comfortably, but we can see for Americans that there is some kind of minimum cost to living even if you can't make enough to pay for it all outright.
Drugs and poverty are intersectional. Laws for drug offenses involving substances most prevalent in poor communities have and continue to have harsher penalties than for drugs that are prevalent in more affluent communities. Drugs are highly available in poor communities, both for addicts and for those that want to sell them since economic advancement through traditional channels are denied to them. Police agencies in many cities enforce crime in the poorer parts of town that are inhabited primarily by people of color much more often than in more affluent areas.
The effects of drug prohibition amplify exiting social and economic issues in US society, so we know that US drug policy has been a total failure and must be changed.
If you want to argue that the lives of poor Americans suck, look at absolute consumption levels, or better yet, look at the actual basket of goods available to poor Americans.
Here is some data to get you started: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf
You may call it envy if that's how you see it -- if you indeed are interesting in learning about the many problems of economic inequality, I recommend the book The Spirit Level (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resource/the-spirit-level).
I can think of no mechanism besides envy which would cause income inequality to harm anyone. It's not as if the US poor lack some good or service which is available in other, more equal societies.
Note that the Spirit Level only provides a correlation between inequality and other problems. It does not show the direction of causality.
The next step in human evolution is to wake up and for people to at least try to see things as they are.
Per definition -- when a country is not a democracy, it is controlled by a junta that steals lots of resources and control the information to the citizens.
So, just for my information, how do you decide that a country does not want to be a democracy...?
Ask the (misinformed) population, which know they will be in trouble if they have the wrong opinions...?!
Strange definition. That would make Singapore a democracy.
I can't give three more counter examples, can you?
(I might add -- the problem with kings are that even if the present one is a genius, you don't know how crazy the next one will be...)
Here is an interesting take:
http://reason.com/archives/2006/03/01/why-poor-countries-are...
Iraq: A guy you know has a chronic illness and he will suffer more if he doesn't move more instead of just sitting at home. He doesn't think being more active is necessary. Is it proper that you force him to work out every day? (You also make some money if you force him to work out every day)
Mexico: You put dangerous trash in front of your house and the neighbor's kids use it to hurt each other and also throw it at your kids and sometimes hurt them. Is it proper to do something about that?
There is no right or wrong but I believe some things are obviously less wrong or more right than others.
Small country though, maybe isn't a good example (they also have lots of ethnic problems with Nepalese that cause disharmony).
Essentially the "Democracy is a universal good" is just US propaganda that furthers its own interests.
So you're saying that rule of law, women's right, etc (see e.g. the UN declarations) are just Western propaganda -- other people don't want it?
Afaik, everyone and their dogs try to emigrate to where they can get these rights and the good economy that comes in an open, democratic society... (and/or bleed in the streets for them.)
Thanks for a good laugh. I'll still assume you're a troll or from the 50 cent army.
Only when the Culture is compatible with Democracy can you have it.
Not only is this logical, but it's also demonstrated over and over in the world.
What worked for America 300 years ago, does not translate to what will work for Iraq or Lybia today.
Even things like georaphy, rivers, and the type of soil you have can influence the type a government or system the country subscribes to. Not even mentioning the big one, Religion.
And when you have a miss-match... Instability replaces a stable structure (even if that structure was based on strong rule, it at least keept things working "better").
You should also refrain from name-calling other people on HN just because you don't agree with their opinions. It doesn't really help you ... unless you're looking to impress the anti-Microsoft or KimDotCom crowd here (just a helpful tip someone once told me).
I'll just correct your line a little, it is one of the most efficient ways to get individual rights.
> So you're saying that rule of law, women's right, etc (see e.g. the UN declarations) are just Western propaganda -- other people don't want it?
No, I wasn't saying that, those were your words. The UN declaration of human rights, is not incompatible with the notion of collective rights. That is, you don't need to have individual rights, to still provide human rights.
> Afaik, everyone and their dogs try to emigrate to where they can get these rights and the good economy that comes in an open, democratic society... (and/or bleed in the streets for them.)
This is simply untrue, who is 'everyone'? The majority of the world's population don't live in the west, and aren't trying to migrate to it.
Those that do migrate, are motivated by security and economy. Though these things can be related to democracy, the motivation is not related.
> Thanks for a good laugh. I'll still assume you're a troll or from the 50 cent army.
Unnecessary to degrade the discussion like that. I am merely providing an alternate point of view. I know that can be confronting, but it's the point of view that is confronting, not the person providing it.
For individual rights I brought up human rights from UN etc.
You answered: "No, I wasn't saying that, those were your words."
That is wrong.
You did say "individual rights" yourself -- I just answered with the general rights which are (more or less) supported in democracies. But you knew that.
I wonder a bit what you mean with "collective rights"? (Clans? The communist party? Your church/mosque?) Not enough to really care. Your position seem too much like an abstract (sophistic?) defense for oppressing people by claiming rights for groups. Not new in history.
A fun read, anyway.
Collective Rights is a popular concept that a quick google would reveal to you. It is not about Clans, Communism or Relgion.
Democracy is not a cure to oppression.
You lack references. If this is what you talk about, I don't see the problem with democracy (or relevance to what I originally wrote):
- http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126065/isscollective.html
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
You'll see the the above is not incompatible with Human Rights[1]
As per my original comment, democracy and the spread of it at the hand of the US is entrenched in its history[2] and serves its religious and economical agenda.
You may want to look up the following for your own benefit (in future discussions):
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
In particular:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
[1] http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Hu...
From your original comment:
>> [Democracy] is a biproduct of individualism, and individual rights... These are not universally agreed concepts and a lot of people don't agree with them.
You claimed there that many people disagreed with individual rights, which I questioned -- using the Human rights from UN as an example.
Again -- you seem to be arguing something else now. Or your point of claiming a contrast is too trivial.
Thanks for the links to "collective rights", they were clearer than Wikipedia.
>>As per my original comment, democracy and the spread of it at the hand of the US is entrenched in its history
American exceptionalism is afaik something you find on the quite extreme US right? Also, the definitions of democracy in western Europe etc is quite accepted in the US so it isn't that extreme even there...
(Re child labour -- we had that in the West, until we could afford not to. It is a stage in economic evolution, which is best left as quickly as possible. Re alternative economic models -- please show me some that work and are tested, there should be better ways of doing economy.)
I think that is one sincere line to keep in mind when reading this post. The part about municipal cops in Monterrey taking anyone caught with "non-zeta drugs" to "las zetas" (sic) for killing would stand out as pretty a ridiculous fabrication for most people there.
That is an interesting statement, I don't think I understand what you mean? Isn't conveying the truth being factual? Or is this an expression I am not familiar with?
Was it for money, because they felt unappreciated, because they saw too many bad things and just stopped caring (or were ordered to do said bad things and it broke them), because they didn't care in the first place and enrolled just to get the training?
The situation is certainly quite bad, but understanding why it got there in the first place could be interesting, if only to protect other countries from the same experience - ie a drug startup could consider setting shop in, say Canada, with a much larger and far less controlled border, lots of empty space and forest to run labs (etc) using the very same methods.
Reservations, crime and drug friendly cities like Winnipeg could offer them a great advantage - or if we talk about geography, sea access from Labrador to the European market could also be an advantage.
So the question is - why did it happen in Mexico?
So that explains why Mexico instead of Canada. But I'm not sure what motivated those particular soldiers to go rogue.
You might want to look into the margins on cocaine production. Either that or the person selling you your greenhouses is ripping you off.
Mexico is a needed stop into the US. From that article, "Due to U.S. interdiction successes in the Caribbean during the 1990s, Mexico has now become the single most important way-station for cocaine and heroin produced in the Andes, and is itself a major producer of marijuana and methamphetamines. The permeability of the U.S.-Mexican border allows for easy transit into the United States, and Mexico’s share of the drug trade has grown steadily over the past 15 years."
IMO, whenever you have as much poverty as Mexico, but a very wealthy neighbor, this can be a possibility.
The problem with drugs has changed though in recent years. The new generation of addicts are doing mostly research chemicals or regular pills like painkillers and such.
So in a sense some of the biggest drug dealers in the future will be pharma companies. When you hear how severe something like oxycodone withdrawal is compared to heroin withdrawal you understand that our societies drug problems have not peaked yet.
In Europe it does not only depend on the country but also on the city, which programs are available to addicts. The same goes for possession of minor quantities. Rules are highly confusing and it is usually safest to go by: "If you don't know the unspoken rules, try not to break the written ones."
The success of localized pushes to legalize marijuana is a good sign. The failure on the federal level is not. Sadly the legalization push has largely been rationalized as "marijuana isn't that bad for you, it even has medical value" ; that same argument doesn't work very well in the other categories.
Rather, the legalization story needs to be switched to one where criminalization causes increased usage and death to abusers along with irreconcilable and inexcusable damage to bystanders.
Everyone with a rational mind knows what alcohol prohibition did. We need to break down the barriers erected by decades of government financed propaganda to move forward.
"the Zetas would delight in kidnapping and torturing him for fun, videotaping the snuff, and finally dissolving the poor bastard’s carcass in an oil drum full of acid."
I believe it was "El Pozolero" who was the one notorious for the 'drum full of acid' routine.
We are, after all, America.