Job Discussion Forums

geaaronson · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 948 Location: Mexico City

The answer to your wife`s hypothesis is multiple.
First the cartels would be subject to past violations of the tax code which would not be annulled retroactively. So, yes, a cartel would not be subject to arrest of its members for drug trafficking but for past murders, extortion, bribery of public officials, tax evastion, etc. Do I need to go on?

Second, laws are revised all the time. In the US, it was in violation of federal law for a woman to have an abortion until Roe vs. Wade when the feds turned the issue over to the states. Women were not retroactively prosecuted in those states that liberalized their laws. Need I to go on?

Phil_K · Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 2041 Location: A World of my Own

MotherF · Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:40 pm Post subject:

But the state could levy a hefty tax on that trade and use that money to pay law enforcement agents a good salary (and require proper training) to help combat corruption.

But back on the topic! Pe�a Nieto has done it again--have you seen the video circulating of him "speaking" English! Laughing

Phil_K · Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 2041 Location: A World of my Own

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uF38nF2m3Gw

He's reading it...badly! Try listening without the "subtitles".

Hey, MotherF, check under the video I linked to see the name of the person who uploaded it. I can't be, can it? Wink

geaaronson · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 948 Location: Mexico City

Trafficking without a license, killing the opposition, extortion are still crimes. They`re not going to change their behaviour once consumption and sales are legalized. They haven`t been effectively dealt a blow when it is illegal. Arrest a few capos and consumption continues.

All we are doing is adding to the police body count, and I mean those cops caught between two worlds. The snitches get killed for doing "good Samaritan deeds". 40,000 Mexicans needlessly die for a business that should never have been made illegal in the first place as there is no danger to marijuana consumption. It all goes back to that, Phil K. If there is no sane reason to outlaw the consumption of marijuana, why in the world would you want to destroy so many lives?

Your wife`s argument is a foolish one. If the laws against marijuana are revoked, then it is because we as a people have recognized that the laws were never valid to begin with.

Let me put it to you another way. In the state of Massachusetts it is illegal to sell alcoholic beverages other than in a bar on Sunday. Many American states have that law. So now we repeal it. But no, your wife protests because the year before the laws were changed 2,000 drunkards purchased their beer from supermarkets that were surreptitiously selling beer out of the back door. The good people of the state of Massachusetts realize finally that the bars have been putting pressure on the state legislature all those years to allow only them to sell alcohol. Wow! what a deal. They have manipulated the system for years and now the good people say no more. They want the right to buy their beer wherever.

Again, with abortion.

So we have to maintain all present laws so that we don`t exonerate those violators who broke the law prior to the law`s change? That`s putting the horse behind the cart.

MotherF · Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 11:55 pm Post subject:

No Phil, we are not related! Laughing

I don't have sound where I am right now, but this seems to be in English too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zJtaQFWT60&feature=related

An interview with Univision.

geaaronson · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 948 Location: Mexico City

geaaronson · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 948 Location: Mexico City

Phil K

Also consider with the legalization of marijuana, it will cause more damage to the cartels then the government`s war on them. Foot soldiers, Zetas,contract killers and the like have been replaced easily with each police arrest and adversary cartel�s assassination. The economic model for the drug industry is intact. A leader is caught here and there and shipped off to either the US for crimes there or incarcerated here in MX. A new leader takes his place.

The war will never be won as it is waged as it is. There has been nary a dent since the government seized the iniitiative how many years ago.

But with legalization, then every Dick, Tom and Harry, (or Jose, Felipe y Juan) will be able to grow pot without fear of police arrest. No longer will anyone have to worry about their neighbor reporting them if they have a small pot patch in a square meter of their milpa lands. Locals will have legal access without hobnobbing with the hardened criminals of the drug network. That will be the real blow. Yes, it will probably not affect the US trade. Those larger marijuana growers will be the only ones that will adequately satisfy US demand. But as for local consumption, the demand will be satisfied outside of the cartel structure.

So you have a choice. Continue the drug war against the drogistas, get your police officers assassinated, military attacked, politicians corrupted and extorted, or a partial solution to the whole mess.

Guy Courchesne · Joined: 10 Mar 2003 Posts: 9650 Location: Mexico City

Watched a very amusing ad by AMLO this eve...

It went: Vote for experience...I have it, governing DF. DF is one of the safest places in the country because of me.

I can't figure out who the ad is aimed at...

Phil_K · Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 2041 Location: A World of my Own

I like Pe�a Nieto's:

"Como Presidente, mi compromiso es..." (or something similar, but in present tense!) Have I missed something?

BadBeagleBad · Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:00 pm Post subject:

Phil_K · Joined: 25 Jan 2007 Posts: 2041 Location: A World of my Own