NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC: COLOMBIA'S DRUG WAR

Portena says on Mar 1, 2008, 11:31:

Interesting. When was this filmed, tasco? Do you know?

Here is a good link:

www.sharedresponsibility.gov.co

Shared Responsibility is a Colombia-led initiative for illicit-drug producing and consuming countries to work on shared solutions to the threat that cocaine production, trafficking and abuse poses to the world.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alma del Norte says on Mar 1, 2008, 11:54:

Gringo drug mule summed it up: "they don't really want to stop this". Nice vid.

La vida es una rutina

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Mar 1, 2008, 15:03:

Isn't it plainly obvious at this point that the military cannot solve the problem. In fact, it has only made it worse in most cases. By eradicating the industry in Bolivia and Peru, the US just pushed it into Colombia. Then, by focusing on the cartels, the US simply boosted the power of the illegal armed groups (FARC/AUC) who stepped in to fill the vacuum. Now that they are having mild success in Colombia, production is increasing again in Peru and Bolivia. Have fun chasing those easily grown plants around.

The Commander in Chief of the southern Command said of the US Andean Drug Strategy that the problem would be solved within a decade. That was back in the early 90's. The drug war was a failure before Plan Colombia just as it is now.

Not to mention that policy-makers admit that they have to force the campesinos into joining the alternative development programs by aggressive eradication operations. Is that a solution? They recognize that the alternative development programs are not effective, that they will not provide the campesinos with a viable alternative that will enable them to provide for their families. Therefore, force them into it by spraying the countryside with Roundup Ultra. That doesn't sound like a plan that will bring about success. And it will only increase anti-american sentiment and anger towards the Colombian government over time. Not to mention Colombia's neighbors are unhappy with the influx of Colombians into their countries.

Most importantly, drug treatment funding is often cut. As long as there is demand, there will always be a starving campesino willing to supply.

US policy makers should start realizing how our countries addiction has impacted Colombia. How our policies have impacted Colombia. Ummm...wishful thinking I know.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Portena says on Mar 1, 2008, 16:08:

That's what the shared responsibility site is about - fighting the drug war on all fronts, not just in Colombia. An important aspect of the effort is changing attitudes, and providing treatment for addiction - not just spraying coca fields and blowing up drug labs.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Mar 1, 2008, 17:00:

I am against spraying the fields. Colombia needs to do something about the fact that it is a highly stratified country. The distribution of wealth and land is extremely unequal. It's nice to see some positive changes happening in the country, but I hope more emphasis gets placed on helping the campesinos rather than victimizing them for something that they have little control over...I'll check out the site. Thanks Portena.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

LDW says on Mar 1, 2008, 17:32:

The most effective treatment for a coke addict is to lock him in a room with an unlimited supply of the drug, in hopes of bringing about his quick demise.

A dead drug addict is no longer a problem.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Alma del Norte says on Mar 1, 2008, 18:05:

Why hate on drug addicts? What's your view on emphysema and obesity?

La vida es una rutina

0 funny, 0 helpful.

nine inch nails says on Mar 1, 2008, 18:20:

Great videos. US Navy O6 and the special Colombia anti-drug ship very interesting.

"They know nothing, they know nothing." J. Cramer

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Mar 1, 2008, 18:39:

Thanks LDW, glad you're not in politics!

The Rand Corporation, a CONSERVATIVE think tank, did a study which found that rehab was "twenty-three times more cost effective than our drug eradication and crop substitution programs overseas."

The US Office of National Drug Control Strategy says that "treatment of addiction is as successful as treatment of other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma."

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Robert Jorge says on Mar 1, 2008, 20:15:

I think I understand LDW's frustration. It is easy to think of an unrealistic, but emotionally satisfying solution. LDW is correct - the problem is that there is a market for the shit. Dry up the market, there won't be an incentive to be a source. I don't think one is more evil, or at fault, than the other.

Rehab is a big part of the solution. A partial decriminalization for usage is another part. The amount of money saved from releasing non-violent drug offenders from prison in the US would be astronomical. Combine that, with the cops not having to waste resources trying to bust drug dealers ... we would have more money than we would know what to do with. And that could be used for rehab and prevention.

I am pretty damn conservative politically - yet what I just typed is a "no-brain-er" to me. I am not a big conspiracy theorist - but I am starting to realize that the whole "war on drugs" phenomenon is a racket. I think the governments are in deep. There is too much money at stake. If drugs were decriminalized, think of the amount of money that wouldn't be necessary for government agencies. Without that money, DEA, FBI, local and state police agencies wouldn't have the same income and would have to down-staff. Prisons would have to lay-off staff, because half of their "guests" would walk. Like all government programs, the war on drugs has created an institution and a machine that feeds on money.

BEWARE of gold diggers.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Portena says on Mar 1, 2008, 20:38:

There are several medications now that help reduce drug cravings, so the arsenal for treating drug addiction is expanding.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Mar 1, 2008, 21:46:

hum, I understand frustration as well, but I don't think I would find anything emotionally satisfying about the solution proposed by LDW.

RJ, you have some good points.

Hoy se nota en la floresta un ambiente de alegría. ¡Y el rumor de ranchería es mas dulce y sabe a fiesta!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

LDW says on Mar 2, 2008, 01:38:

Robert Jorge.......precisely....

Of course I realize that what I suggested is unrealistic.

More people die of tobacco addiction than heroin or cocaine addiction, and according to what I have read, nicotine addiction is actually tougher to kick than the other two.

And who is the biggest dealer of nicotine?

I am reminded of the standoff the Canadian government had with the native band at Oka in Quebec about 15 years ago...or more. The natives there were importing cigarettes and selling them at lower prices than highly taxed Canadian cigarettes. The Canadian police were out on the St Lawrence River protecting the product of their drug kingpin masters, who of course are our elected politcians.

If Coca were grown here, if cocaine were produced here, and if governments could tax it, cocaine would have been legalized long ago. Foreign drug dealers are competing with our elected drug dealers here.

If the Mormon church acquired a financial interest in coffee production, would Mormons all of a sudden be able to drink coffee? Remember, Mormons can drink Coca Cola, which is full of caffeine. Of course, none of us would be so cynical to believe that the dispensation for Mormons to drink Coca Cola has anything to do with the Mormon Church's financial interest in Coca Cola Ltd.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Chriscan says on Mar 2, 2008, 04:20:

It's never been the war ON drugs. It's always been the war FOR drugs. I'm sure many involved think they're trying to get rid of drugs but it's only to make drugs more valueable to the ones that they're bosses choose not to pursue.

************* WARNING ************* my words often come from my ass

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Portena says on Mar 2, 2008, 09:52:

That's a defeatist perspective. If demand dried up or was greatly reduced then the bosses would be out of business. Much preferable to spraying coca fields and spreading toxic pesticides all over. The message of shared responsibility could change the behaviors of some who see themselves as caring about the environment and being against slash and burn deforestation or who see themselves as peaceniks yet apparently aren't aware of the devastating ripple effect the drug business has on Colombia.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

podborski says on Mar 2, 2008, 09:57:

people hate drug addicts at least partly because the ones they are most aware of tend to be committing crimes to feed their habit.

But if drugs were legal, the cost would go down and they would be able to be treated medically, which is what they need.

Less crime, more rehabilitation, fewer (no?) profits for the bad guys.

0 funny, 0 helpful.