De War on Drugs in Mexico #4 - Hoe lossen we de oorlog op?

quote:

Op donderdag 22 maart 2012 01:12 schreef El_Matador het volgende:

[..]

Sterker; de VS is de afzetmarkt voor die klotedrugs. De cokesnuivers in de VS houden die hele zooi in stand. Zonder kopers geen verkoop.

Als men slim is, zorgt men voor eigen productie van prettigere drugs in de VS. Zoiets als de Nederlandse XTC-markt dus.

quote:

Pope arrives in Mexico pledging to fight drugs 'evil'

Thousands greet Pope Benedict XVI on his first visit to Mexico, as he denounces drug-related violence in the country

Pope Benedict has arrived in Mexico promising to "unmask the evil" of drug trafficking in a country ravaged by gang violence that has killed 50,000 people in the past five years.

The pope began his three-day visit to the world's second-most populous Catholic state in the central city of Leon, where he received one of the most exuberant welcomes of any of his foreign trips.

Tens of thousands of people, 20 deep in some places, lined the streets on his 22-mile (35-km) drive through the city.

He touched down in Mexico after making strong statements aboard his papal plane about the country's spiralling drug war.

"We must do whatever is possible to combat this destructive evil against humanity and our youth," he told reporters, referring to the violent conflict between rival drug cartels and the state.

"It is the responsibility of the Church to educate consciences, to teach moral responsibility and to unmask the evil, to unmask this idolatry of money which enslaves man, to unmask the false promises, the lies, the fraud that is behind drugs," the pope added.

Raising his arms aloft as he exited the plane, Benedict descended the stairs slowly, holding the handrail. He was greeted by President Felipe Calderon and a group of children while crowds cheered and waved Vatican flags.

Addressing the masses gathered at the airport in a steady, measured tone, the pope, speaking in Spanish, said he had come as a "pilgrim of faith, of hope, and of love."

"I will pray especially for those in need, particularly those who suffer because of old and new rivalries, resentments and all forms of violence," said Benedict, adding that he hoped his message would also reach Mexicans outside of their homeland.

The bloodshed across Mexico was in the mind of many waiting to see Benedict in the city, a Roman Catholic stronghold that has avoided the worst of the brutal turf wars.

Throngs of Catholics dressed in white t-shirts and caps threw yellow and white confetti, having waited since early morning to see the pope pass. Many of them were young people let out of school for the day.

Several stood in front of a large banner that read "Pope, pray that the violence ends, pray that peace returns."

"Violence is the country's biggest priority. There are some places where you can't even set foot outside it's so dangerous," said 16-year-old Martin Zamora who hung the sign with his Catholic youth group.

"Many young people have decided to join up with organised crime instead of fighting it. That's what the pope is coming here for, to help save young people."

Benedict, who turns 85 next month, will rest for 24 hours to recover from jet lag. His main message will be delivered on Sunday at a massive outdoor service that hundreds of thousands of people are expected to attend.

quote:

Op donderdag 22 maart 2012 01:49 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:

[..]

Mexico valt nog mee. Het is vooral de grens waar het zo slecht gaat. Mexico is gigantisch natuurlijk. Volgens mij gaat het in een aantal omringende landen nog erger aan toe dan in Mexico.

quote:

Op zaterdag 24 maart 2012 15:49 schreef El_Matador het volgende:

[..]

Dwingen heb ik het niet over gehad. Marktwerking werkt ook met drugs; door de aanpak van wiet en crack

quote:

, kwam er ineens het ranzige crystal meth op de markt.

quote:

Jij wuift je eigen verantwoordelijkheid weg, dat is veel dommer.

Coke gebruiken = de boel in stand houden...

quote:

Guatemala proposes legalisation of drugs

President says war on drugs has failed and region must look at ways to regulate production, transit and consumption.

Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina has said the war on drugs in Latin America has failed, and has set out a raft of proposals to look at the possibility of decriminalising narcotics or establishing a regional court to try traffickers.

"The proposal is decriminalisation," Perez said at a Central American summit on Saturday to address security throughout the region.

"We are talking about creating a legal framework to regulate the production, transit and consumption of drugs."

Perez Molina called the meeting to consider decriminalisation as a way of reducing drug-related violence.

But the presidents of Nicaragua, El Salvador and Honduras all cancelled their attendance at short notice.

Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Mauricio Funes of El Salvador and Porfirio Lobo of El Salvador decided not to attend.

Change of strategy

The discussion reflects growing concern in Central America about the cost of the war on drugs, which is prompting leaders to take an increasingly independent line from the United States, where officials have repeatedly rejected legalising drugs.

"We have seen that the strategy that has been pursued in the fight against drug trafficking over the last 40 years has failed," Perez Molina said. "We have to look for new alternatives. We must end the myths, the taboos, and tell people you have to discuss it."

Perez Molina caused widespread surprise when he announced in January that he thought it was time to consider decriminalising the consumption, production and trafficking of drugs.

A retired general, Perez Molina won an election in November 2011 promising to crack down on organised crime.

But he shifted from his hard-line message shortly after taking office in January, calling for a more open debate on drug policy.

"It's important this is on the discussion table as an alternative to what we've been doing for 40 years without getting the desired results," said Perez Molina, noting that decriminalisation would erode drug cartels' profits.

The president added that Central American leaders were considering asking the US, the biggest consumer of South American cocaine, to pay the region for drug raids.

"We're talking about economic compensation for every seizure undertaken and also the destruction of marijuana and cocaine plantations," said Perez Molina.

Regional leaders in countries affected by drug violence have called for more open debate on other solutions to the problem.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon, to whom Perez has turned for advice on confronting the cartels, has called on Washington to take more responsibility for reducing demand for drugs, and has said he is open to debates about legalisation.

The subject is also likely to be discussed at the Summit of the Americas in Colombia on 14-15 April.

quote:

War on drugs a ‘comprehensive failure’

A coalition of legal experts, drug researchers and health professionals based at the University of New South Wales has backed a call by a group of eminent Australians for an overhaul of Australia's approach to illicit drugs.

The Australia21 group of eminent Australians today released their report The Prohibition of Illicit Drugs is Killing and Criminalising our Children and We Are Letting It Happen. The report calls for a fundamental rethink of current policies, and an end to the tough-on-drugs approach.

“By making the supply and use of certain drugs criminal acts, governments everywhere have driven their production and consumption underground and have fostered the development of a criminal industry that is corrupting civil society and governments and killing our children,” the report says.

Backing the report today is the newly formed Australian Drug Law Reform Initiative, comprising 20 multidisciplinary experts from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and internationally. The group says the current approach to illicit drugs has comprehensively failed.

Every year some 400 Australians die from illicit drugs and thousands more suffer the short and long-term term health and social consequences of drug dependence. Criminalisation of drug production and use has resulted in the pervasive corruption of the criminal justice system, the group says.

“Over a decade ago, Portugal decriminalised the possession of small quantities of all illicit drugs. The results showed health and social benefits and a reduced burden on the criminal justice system. It is time to consider whether a similar approach should be taken in Australia,” UNSW criminology professor and initiative member Julie Stubbs said.

Former Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Nicholas Cowdery, a Visiting Professorial Fellow at UNSW, said the problems associated with drug use should be dealt with in the health and social systems, with only the peripheral involvement of the criminal law.

“Over more than 40 years in criminal legal practice I have seen the impotence of the criminal law in an area for which it is not suited,” Mr Cowdery said. “It is time to reform the laws to enable drugs to be dealt with by other mechanisms, although doubtless a small number of bootleggers would still need to be prosecuted.

“We need to discuss generally and openly the best way forward and engage politicians in the process. UNSW’s Australian Drug Law Reform Initiative provides the forum for that to occur in an informed way.”

International partner in the UNSW Initiative, Professor Ernest Drucker, from John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY) in New York, said momentum for drug law reform was building around the world, especially in Latin America. A founder of the international harm reduction movement, Professor Drucker recently visited UNSW as a Fulbright Senior Specialist.

“As an American public health and drug treatment professional I have seen the harms that both drug addiction and errant drug criminalisation policies can cause. The drug law reform efforts now underway in Australia and other nations mark a hopeful change – a new milestone in our struggle to put drug issues where they belong – in healthcare, effective exercise of social responsibility, and defence of human rights – not as a criminal matter," he said.

President of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation and initiative member, Dr Alex Wodak, said: “It is clear that countries that have relied heavily on law enforcement to deal with drugs have failed, at great cost, and a difficult problem has been made much worse. The transition to more effective drug policy needs evidence and insights from law, health and other disciplines. And students need to learn more about the damaging effects of existing laws.”

_{For more information about the Australian Drug Law Reform Initiative and its aims, go to the website.}

quote:

Op zaterdag 24 maart 2012 15:49 schreef El_Matador het volgende:

[..]

Dwingen heb ik het niet over gehad. Marktwerking werkt ook met drugs; door de aanpak van wiet en crack, kwam er ineens het ranzige crystal meth op de markt.

Jij wuift je eigen verantwoordelijkheid weg, dat is veel dommer.

Coke gebruiken = de boel in stand houden...

quote:

A moral argument against the war on drugs

Former Brazilian President, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, has argued that the war on drugs has failed and cannabis should be decriminalised. He argued that the hardline approach has brought “disastrous” consequences for Latin America. Having just returned from Rio, we can only agree.

One of us was staying with an eminent professor of philosophy. We were returning to her house with her 11-year-old daughter, only to have our way blocked by police with machine guns. They were hunting a drug lord in the local favela – this road was the only escape route and they were preparing for possible altercation.

Cardoso highlights the practical failure of a zero-tolerance approach. A zero-tolerance approach to a crime like taking drugs must always fail, in the same way as a zero-tolerance approach to alcohol, prostitution or drugs in sport will always fail. Paradoxically, the worst thing you could do to the drug lords in Rio is not to wage a war on them, but to decriminalise cocaine and marijuana. They would be out of business in one day. Supplies could be monitored, controlled and regulated, the harm to users and third parties significantly reduced.

The case for legalising drugs has been made often, most recently by Australia’s foreign minister, Bob Carr, who this week co-signed a report declaring “the war on drugs has failed”. The argument is nearly always put forward in terms of the burdens that the drug war has imposed on us in terms of crime and public health. And it is true that these things give us good reason to abandon Richard Nixon’s war on drugs. But we so rarely hear a moral argument in favour of liberalising drug laws. This is a mistake.

Although experts have told us time and time again that things would be better without the drug war, politicians have ignored the expert advice because voters do not want drugs laws to be loosened. And voters feel this way not because they think they know better than the experts, but because they have moral objections to drug use. There is a hidden moral debate driving the war on drugs that we never seem to bring out in the open.

The original drug prohibitions had a moral rationale rather than a practical one. It began with the American prohibition of opium, which was primarily motivated by a moral objection to white people smoking in Chinese-run opium dens. This began a prohibition movement in the United States. In 1913, marijuana — which was used almost exclusively by Mexican and Indian immigrants — was prohibited for the first time by the state of California.

Today, when new drugs are added to the long list of illegal substances, it is because they are judged to be “addictive”, not because they are harmful. The United States’ Controlled Substances Act calls for a drug to be prohibited if it has “a high potential for abuse” and if it “may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence”.

The drug does not have to be harmful in any other sense. According to US government statistics, paracetamol (acetaminophen) is involved in nearly five times as many emergency room visits as MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often referred to as “ecstasy”), and it remains available in supermarkets around the world.

So the main reason that drugs like alcohol and caffeine are legal, but cocaine and MDMA are not, is that the latter are judged to be “addictive”. (Suspend for a moment the true belief that alcohol and caffeine are addictive.)

Addiction does harm the addict, to be sure. But self-harm cannot provide grounds for prohibiting a substance. As philosopher John Stuart Mill famously put it, the sole legitimate reason for interfering with a person’s liberty is when he risks harming others.

And while it is sometimes argued that the “drug problem” makes us all worse off, most of these harms flow directly from the zero-tolerance approach — drug prohibitions harm others when they are robbed, beaten or killed by those who run the black market of drugs.

It is sometimes argued by liberal-minded people that addictions warrant state interference because they render the addict incompetent, powerless to make an autonomous decision to take drugs. The addict becomes like a child in need of parental protection — or in this case the protection of the state. In this way “addiction” becomes a moral concept, not a form of harm. It is a condition that robs us of our moral status.

We have argued in a number of articles that such a view of addiction is false. People who take drugs are not suffering from a disease and they do not necessarily have some pathological failing of will power. They may be imprudent or irrational in taking drugs, but then again, we all are, nearly every day, in various ways when we eat unhealthily, engage in risky sports, smoke, drink or gamble.

Addicts may place to greater value on pleasure, or on excitement, or escape from reality, but their addictions are not different in kind to desires for other pleasurable activities. People become “addicted” to gambling, videogames, internet use, exercise, sex, carrots, sugar and water. These substances or activities do not “hijack” the brain — they provide pleasure utilising the same brain pathways as drugs. Every pleasurable activity is “addictive”.

The public discourse on drugs includes liberty, health, and crime, but it so rarely includes the value of pleasure. We do not have to be hedonists to believe that pleasure is one of the important goods in a person’s life. A liberal society should be neutral with regard to which pleasures people may pursue; it should not force people to conform to a particular conception of “good” and “bad” pleasures.

But more importantly, if every pleasurable behaviour can be addictive, then there can be no reason to believe that the pleasures of drug use are less important than the pleasures of good food and wine, of rock-climbing and football, or of browsing the internet. Each of these things is pleasurable, and hence each is addictive, and each can be harmful if done to excess. But we all have a right to pursue the pleasures we find valuable, even though each of these pleasures puts us at risk of addictions or addiction-like problems: alcoholism, pathological internet use, sex addiction, binge eating disorders, and so on.

The right to pursue pleasure gives us reason to legalise drugs, while addiction and self-harm fail to give us good reason to prohibit them. That is the essence of a strong moral argument against the war on drugs.

There remains one possible ground for interfering in liberty and retaining the ban on drugs. That ground is the public interest. If society were to be severely impaired by liberalisation of drug laws, that might be an extreme case that warrants a ban on drugs.

But our (admittedly limited) experience suggests the opposite — the Netherlands appears to have reduced its drug problem, without increasing its overall rate of drug use, by enacting relatively liberal drug laws for “soft” drugs like marijuana. And as Cardoso argues, a complete ban seems to be strongly against the public interest, keeping drug lords in business and the user and others in a position of severe vulnerability.

In the future, perhaps we will give up our squeamishness about drugs which provide pleasure. We could use modern pharmacological science to select or even design drugs which give us the pleasure or experiences we seek, but cheaply and without serious acute or chronic health risks. For the present, the drug which we can most freely obtain is one of the most addictive, one which contributes to violent behaviour, one which produces terrible chronic health effects and the worst withdrawal syndrome of all drugs. Alcohol.

The time has come to take a rational approach to drugs.

quote:

'War on drugs' has failed, say Latin American leaders

Watershed summit will admit that prohibition has failed, and call for more nuanced and liberalised tactics

A historic meeting of Latin America's leaders, to be attended by Barack Obama, will hear serving heads of state admit that the war on drugs has been a failure and that alternatives to prohibition must now be found.

The Summit of the Americas, to be held in Cartagena, Colombia is being seen by foreign policy experts as a watershed moment in the redrafting of global drugs policy in favour of a more nuanced and liberalised approach.

Otto Pérez Molina, the president of Guatemala, who as former head of his country's military intelligence service experienced the power of drug cartels at close hand, is pushing his fellow Latin American leaders to use the summit to endorse a new regional security plan that would see an end to prohibition. In the Observer, Pérez Molina writes: "The prohibition paradigm that inspires mainstream global drug policy today is based on a false premise: that global drug markets can be eradicated."

Pérez Molina concedes that moving beyond prohibition is problematic. "To suggest liberalisation – allowing consumption, production and trafficking of drugs without any restriction whatsoever – would be, in my opinion, profoundly irresponsible. Even more, it is an absurd proposition. If we accept regulations for alcoholic drinks and tobacco consumption and production, why should we allow drugs to be consumed and produced without any restrictions?"

He insists, however, that prohibition has failed and an alternative system must be found. "Our proposal as the Guatemalan government is to abandon any ideological consideration regarding drug policy (whether prohibition or liberalisation) and to foster a global intergovernmental dialogue based on a realistic approach to drug regulation. Drug consumption, production and trafficking should be subject to global regulations, which means that drug consumption and production should be legalised, but within certain limits and conditions."

The decision by Pérez Molina to speak out is seen as highly significant and not without political risk. Polls suggest the vast majority of Guatemalans oppose decriminalisation, but Pérez Molina's comments are seen by many as helping to usher in a new era of debate. They will be studied closely by foreign policy experts who detect that Latin American leaders are shifting their stance on prohibition following decades of drugs wars that have left hundreds of thousands dead.

Mexico's president, Felipe Calderón, has called for a national debate on the issue. Last year Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia's president, told the Observer that if legalising drugs curtailed the power of organised criminal gangs who had thrived during prohibition, "and the world thinks that's the solution, I will welcome it".

One diplomat closely involved with the summit described the event as historic, saying it would be the first time for 40 years that leaders had met to have an open discussion on drugs. "This is the chance to look at this matter with new eyes," he said.

Latin America's increasing hostility towards prohibition makes Obama's attendance at the summit potentially difficult. The Obama administration, keen not to hand ammunition to its opponents during an election year, will not want to be seen as softening its support for prohibition. However, it is seen as significant that the US vice-president, Joe Biden, has acknowledged that the debate about legalising drugs is now legitimate.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso, former president of Brazil and chairman of the global commission on drug policy, has said it is time for "an open debate on more humane and efficient drug policies", a view shared by George Shultz, the former US secretary of state, and former president Jimmy Carter.

quote:

Anonymous to launch Operation Cannabis 420 campaign

First Netflix, now the drug war. Anonymous is taking absolutely no prisoners this week.

The hacktivist group has declared a new project: Operation Cannabis 420. The informal Internet collective has declared April 20, a traditional day of observance for those in the marijuana community, as a day of action for all occupiers around the world and will launch a full campaign to educate the masses and (hopefully) end the war on drugs.

A press release put out today (April 9) highlights the myriad of medicinal uses for cannabis, and states, "Cannabis has been oppressed by the powers that be that are afraid of its true benefits, and these benefits do help all of mankind! So cannabis fits the criteria for Anonymous support."

And just what can you do? "We ask that all Anons and individuals please support the legalization efforts in any way possible! Even simply signing a petition or sharing info or even just having an open mind about the subject will help!" The group is also asking people to make their online social-media photos green on April 20 as a show of solidarity.

Anonymous and cannabis. It's like my two favourite things all rolled into one. If I didn't have a calendar, I'd swear it was Christmas.

Anonymous #OpCannabis 420

quote:

New drug gang wars blow Colombian city's revival apart

Hard-won peace process clears path for bloody challenge to Medellín's top cartel

A team of bodyguards fans out through the three-storey building in central Medellín, calling out "clear" after each room is checked. One gunman remains stationed on each floor; another three guard the building's entrance.

With the area secured, a young man in a designer T-shirt and baseball cap emerges on to the roof terrace, followed by his lieutenant. Javier is a trafficker with Colombia's longest-surviving drug cartel, the Envigado Office, but he describes his work in matter-of-fact terms.

"The Office controls the illegal businesses in Medellín. Its main businesses are extortion, hired killings, the traffic in arms and drugs," he says.

The heavy security is soon explained: Javier fears his cartel – and his home city – may be on the brink of another drug war.

Colombia was supposed to have overcome its bloody history. Over the last decade, the government has pushed leftist rebels back into jungles, overseen the demobilisation of tens of thousands of illegal far-right militia fighters and taken down various drug capos.

Washington foreign policy mandarins such as Paul Wolfowitz have held up Colombia as a model for other countries struggling with narco-chaos, such as Afghanistan and Mexico.

And Medellín, Colombia's industrial heartland, was promoted as the embodiment of the country's renaissance: the murder rate plummeted by about 80% over five years, reaching a decade low of 34 deaths per 100,000 in 2007. Once called the "city of death", Medellín was now open for business.

But the root cause of Colombia's violence – the country's status as the world's biggest cocaine producer – has not disappeared. And Medellín's apparent peace lasted only as long as its underworld was run by one man, through the Envigado Office.

Named after a neighbourhood of Medellin, the Office was originally a group of hitmen acting for Pablo Escobar's cartel. After Escobar's death in 1993, the Office was taken over by a former ally turned bitter rival of Escobar, Diego Murillo, known as Don Berna, who cemented control over Medellín and moved the organisation deeper into drug-trafficking.

The Office will collect on anyone's debt, as long as the creditor is willing to give over 50% of what is recovered. It has its own motto: "Debts get paid – with money or with life."

"Many people know that the government won't act as it should, it won't help the people in what they need. Many people come to us to collect money, debts on cars, debts for drugs, basically anything," says Javier.

In his book The Multinational of Crime: the Terrifying Office of Envigado, journalist Alfredo Serrano writes: "Whenever anyone died, people would say that 'they had got on the wrong side of the Office' – as if this criminal organisation held the power of life itself."

Murillo handed himself in to the authorities in 2005 as part of a peace process with the far-right paramilitary groups, but was accused of continuing to run the Office from behind bars, which eventually led to his extradition to the United States. He was convicted of exporting tonnes of cocaine and sentenced to 31 years in an American prison.

After his conviction, the then head of the US Drug Enforcement Administration said: "American and Colombian communities are safer with the removal of this notorious drug kingpin."

But it would not prove so for Medellín. With Murillo out of the way, a vicious power struggle erupted between his successors. Medellín's homicide rate doubled in 2009, leaving about 3,000 people dead.

"Around 15 close friends were killed in the war. We couldn't go out to clubs, we just had to stay home and not get killed," says Javier.

The factional fighting within the Office came to an end last year with the capture of one of the rival leaders, and since then most of the group has reunited under a new boss, just in time to confront a new threat: one of Colombia's emerging narco-militias, the Urabeños.

The Urabeños sprang up after the peace deal with the far-right paramilitaries. While the main militia leaders were jailed alongside Don Berna, most of the mid-range commanders – those who had been running the day-to-day cocaine operations – were free. Many of these commanders reorganised their old outfits, recruited other demobilised fighters, and returned to drug‑running.

The Urabeños are now a force across much of northern Colombia, bringing a military discipline to organised crime.

"They don't think like average narcos," said Jeremy McDermott, founder of Insight Crime, a thinktank that tracks organised crime in Latin America. "They are extraordinarily political, mixed with deep criminal experience."

The group's power was felt earlier this year when it forced dozens of towns to close all businesses after authorities killed a Urabeño leader. And now they are eyeing Medellín.

The looming battle between the Office and the Urabeños is for control of Medellin's underworld, the vast local market and for positioning to be able to negotiate with the Mexican mafias that ship cocaine to the US.

"Many Colombians are moving over to Mexico to firm up relations," says Javier. "We get our guns from there and they get the drugs from us."

Earlier this month, a city-wide police sweep targeted gangs including the Office, arresting 49 people, including seven due for extradition. Last month, the brother of the current leader of the Office was arrested.

But observers say cracking down on the Office will not be enough to keep the peace in Medellín. Jesús Sánchez, who heads the human rights office for the city's ombudsman, says the local government must offer legal alternatives to the legions of hitmen who would fight any drug war.

"The state must do more than just attack the crime; the state needs a greater presence in the poor neighbourhoods," he said.

Infrastructure in the slums has improved, but Sánchez says the city still owes its young men a historical debt: two generations have grown up in a culture of violence and the easy money of trafficking. "When a young man doesn't find work, he's got the chance immediately to join a gang and get all the money he needs."

Javier doesn't see Medellín emerging from its problems soon. "If this is going to change, people must really want to change. But people always want money and power."

quote:

The only winner in the 'war on drugs'

The real effect of militarising drugs policy in Latin America has been to cement the hegemony of the US Southern Command

One of the most interesting and challenging paradoxes of debate on the "war on drugs" is how little examination there has been of its major warrior: the military. In Latin America, that means the US Southern Command (SouthCom).

The story of the US military's involvement begins in the late 1970s and early 1980s with episodic counter-narcotics operations, but when the "war on drugs" became a national security issue, the difference between military and police activities became blurred. At first, there was a certain reluctance on the part of the military to being sucked into an unconventional, politically-driven fight against the illegal drug trade. But they were eventually won over to participation in anti-narcotics efforts – thanks, in part, to growing anti-drug budgets approved by Congress.

New objectives and more resources were the result: correspondingly, SouthCom grew and evolved into a crucial player in what became, by the mid 1990s, a low-intensity conflict being fought on a very broad front. As SouthCom's role became dominant, ideology came into play: the Miami-based command not only carried out anti-drug activities, but also defined a new enemy – "radical populism", in the words of former SouthCom Commander General James T Hill, to the House armed services committee in 2004. Yet, seldom was the US Southern Command's role in the region subjected to scrutiny.

After 9/11 and the rise of the so-called "new threats" (the supposed amalgamation of international terrorism, organised crime, drug trafficking and weapons of mass destruction), Washington ceased to observe a distinction between internal security and external defence. SouthCom experienced a "great leap forward": its role was already extensive, but now it developed into a more autonomous protagonist in the "war on drugs". Plan Colombia, first, and the Mérida Initiative, more recently, were emblematic of the core rationality of a coercive anti-drug strategy – a strategy that, by definition, placed the military centre-stage in a prohibitionist crusade in the Americas.

The strategy led to several developments from 1999 onwards: the establishment of new bases (called "security cooperative locations") in the region, as part of the American global military posture; the increase in non-combatant personnel in charge of Latin America at the Miami headquarters of the US Southern Command over the last decade (surpassing the number of Latin America-related government officials in all the departments located in Washington); the unprecedented, ambitious mission of this command as the "leading joint and interagency organisation seeking to support security, stability and prosperity in the Americas", according to the 2016 SouthCom Command Strategy 2016(pdf); the redeployment of the US 4th Fleet in 2008, which had been inactive since 1950; and the stationing by mid 2010 of 7,000 troops, 200 helicopters and 46 warships to combat drugs in Costa Rica. All these developments are clear signs of the growing significance and autonomy of the US Southern Command in the "war on drugs".

What we are witnessing practically everywhere in the Americas is a coercive prohibition campaign that brings neither a partial nor a total solution to the drug question. Unless its premises are challenged, a permanent sense of a "clear and present danger" with regard to narcotics will be fostered both in the United States and in Latin America – which, in a circular way, will only serve to justify the existing repressive policies. The role of the US Southern Command in the Latin American front of the "war on drugs" is key to the prohibitionist paradigm.

The outcome of this militarisation of drugs policy has been overwhelmingly negative. Military involvement in such an irregular war was not only unrealistic, but has also proved counterproductive. Every once in a while, a momentous triumph is announced in one or another country. But within a few years, the proliferation of front lines in the "war on drugs" reveals that such "success" was, at best, a pyrrhic victory. Meanwhile, democracy deteriorates, national insecurity spreads and human rights violations worsen.

Instead of another state-led "coalition of the willing" to fight drugs in a new location, what is needed is a broad, social alliance with bold ideas that could lead beyond the current failed model of counter-narcotics. What is clear is that the current prohibitionist kulturkampf needs to be replaced. The answers will not come from SouthCom's Miami HQ, but from Latin America's civil societies.

quote:

A new legal high goes on sale every week, says EU drugs agency

Centre monitors new laboratory-made psychoactive substances that mimic effects of cannabis, amphetamine and ecstasy

New "legal highs" and other synthetic drugs are appearing on the market at the rate of one a week, the EU's drug agency has warned.

The Lisbon-based European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) says 49 new "psychoactive" substances were officially notified for the first time in 2011 through an EU early warning system.

"This represents the largest number of substances ever reported in a single year, up from 41 substances reported in 2010 and 24 reported in 2009," said the agency.

The largest group 23 were synthetic laboratory designed substances which imitate the effects of cannabis, such as mephedrone marketed as Spice, and a further eight that imitate the effects of amphetamine and ecstasy.

The list of new substances also, for the first time, includes "designer medicines" which are synthesised to mimic the effects of known medicines by slightly altering their chemical structure.

The report also reveals that there has been an explosion in the number of online shops marketing legal highs over the past year.

It says the number of websites selling at least one synthetic drug has more than doubled from 314 in January 2011 to 690 in January this year.

"New drugs have become a global phenomenon which is developing at an unprecedented pace," says the EMCDDA report.

"The speed at which new drugs appear on the market challenges established procedures for monitoring, responding to and controlling the use of new psychoactive substances."

Wolfgang Götz, the agency director, said: "We now see drugs marketed in attractive packages on the internet or sold in nightclubs and street corners.

"Whatever the source, the simple fact is that a dangerous game of roulette is being played by those who consume an ever-growing variety of powders, pills and mixtures without accurate knowledge of what substances they contain and the potential health risk they pose."

The agency says recent surveys show that across Europe, 5% of young people aged 15-24 say they have used legal highs.

In Britain, Latvia and Poland this rises to 10% and in Ireland it reaches 16%.

The UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca) told the EU that the extent to which organised criminals are involved in the trade in new drugs is unclear.

Soca said it closed down 120 websites in 2010/11 that were continuing to advertise mephedrone and naphyrone, another banned synthetic substance. Both were sold as legal highs before they were banned.

Roger Howard of the UK drugs policy commission, an independent organisation providing drugs policy analysis, said when the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act was passed new drugs appeared once every few years: now they are being marketed almost once a week.

"We have rapidly growing numbers of psychoactive drugs on the market, and it's becoming increasingly difficult for the police to identify the drugs they're finding," he said.

"Just adding a drug to the long list already controlled won't make much difference.

"The police and forensics are under too much pressure already to be able to offer much deterrent to potential users.

"We are deluding ourselves if we think that using existing controls like temporary bans will solve the problem."

quote:

Whatever the source, the simple fact is that a dangerous game of roulette is being played by those who consume an ever-growing variety of powders, pills and mixtures without accurate knowledge of what substances they contain and the potential health risk they pose."

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2012 15:27 schreef Basp1 het volgende:

[..]

Dan zouden we maar snel beter sommige drugs legaliseren, daarvan weten we wel de gevolgen en vooral dat deze over het algemeen reuze meevallen.

quote:

Op donderdag 26 april 2012 15:31 schreef El_Matador het volgende:

[..]

Als ze in het Catshuis een zak wiet en wat xtcpilletjes hadden gehad, waren ze er heel lief uitgekomen...

quote:

Journalist from Mexican news magazine found dead

quote:

Authorities believe Regina Martinez, who often wrote about drug cartels in Veracruz, was murdered

quote:

A correspondent with Mexican news magazine Proceso was found dead inside her home in Veracruz state on Saturday and authorities believe the journalist, who often wrote about drug trafficking, was murdered.

Regina Martinez's body was found by police inside the bathroom of her home in the state capital, Xalapa, and there were signs of heavy "blows to her face and body," the state's Attorney General's Office said in a statement. Authorities said initial evidence suggested she died of asphyxiation.

Martinez was the Xalapa correspondent for Proceso, one of Mexico's oldest and most respected investigative news magazines, and she often wrote about drug cartels in the area. Proceso said in a news story on its website that she had worked there for 10 years.

Authorities provided no possible motive for her killing.

Veracruz government spokeswoman Gina Dominguez said agents were searching Martinez's home late Saturday for evidence.

"All lines of investigation will be exhausted. The fact that she was a journalist is one of them," she said.

Recently Veracruz has been plagued by cartel violence, some of it between the powerful Zetas and the so-called Jalisco Cartel New Generation, which is believed to be linked to the Sinaloa cartel. The coastal state is also on a human trafficking route north to the United States.

Veracruz Governor Javier Duarte has ordered an exhaustive investigation into her death, he said in a statement.

Police found Martinez's body after receiving a tip from a neighbour that her house had been left open since early in the day.

In the past year, at least three journalists have been found dead in Veracruz, including Martinez.

In July 2011, a reporter on police matters with the newspaper Notiver, Yolando Ordaz de la Cruz, was found with her throat cut.

A month earlier, gunmen killed Miguel Angel Lopez Velasco, a columnist and deputy editor with Notiver. He was shot together with his wife and one of his children.

Media watchdogs considered Mexico one of the most dangerous countries in which to be a journalist.

There is disagreement on the number of journalist killings. Mexico's national human rights commission says 74 were killed from 2000 to 2011. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists says 51 were killed in that time.

quote:

Four Mexican journalists murdered in last week

quote:

Two press photographers found dead in a canal in the port city of Veracruz alongside a former cameraman and his girlfriend

quote:

Two press photographers have been found dead in a canal in the Mexican port city of Veracruz alongside a former cameraman and a fourth body, less than a week after another journalist based in the city was killed in her home.

The state attorney general's office issued an initial statement identifying photographers Guillermo Luna and Gabriel Huge as among the victims. Both were reportedly working for a local website called Veracruz News and had been missing since the day before.

State authorities later said Esteban Rodríguez, a former cameraman, was also among the dead as well as a woman named as Irasema Becerra, said to be Luna's girlfriend.

It followed the discovery of Regina Martinez, the Veracruz correspondent of the weekly national news magazine Proceso strangled to death in her home last weekend.

The latest murders underline Veracruz's current status as the most extreme focal point for attacks against journalists which have become commonplace in Mexico since President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against the drug cartels in December 2006 and extreme violence exploded across the country.

Of the nine Mexican journalists killed last year probably because of their work, four were from Veracruz.

Ricardo Gonzalez, of the press freedom activist group Article 19, said journalists in Veracruz are being targeted because of their position "as witnesses to the decomposition of the state."

The attacks intensified following the change of state governor 18 months ago that, observers say, destabilised a previous division of the territory between the Zetas and the Gulf cartels. Their subsequent power struggle has been further complicated by the Sinaloa cartel's attempts to increase their influence in the state which is both a key smuggling route for illegal drugs, as well as fertile territory for kidnappings and extortion rackets.

A local paper called Notiver, which has a reputation for being more critical than most, has been hit particularly hard. Miguel Angel Lopez Velasco, a key figure at the publication, was shot dead alongside his wife and one of his children in June 2011. A political reporter from the same paper called Yolanda Ordaz, was found dead and dismembered a month later.

The two photographers tortured and killed this week were reportedly among a group of journalists who left the paper in fear around that time. After a period lying low they started working again as freelancers.

Gonzalez, of Article 19, said there have been "absolutely no advances" in the investigation of any of the murders of journalists in Veracruz. Rather, he said, the state authorities have tended to hint that the killings were motivated by personal troubles, or filed them away as the work of the cartels ignoring the fact that corruption means it is often difficult to define where the authorities stop and organised crime begins.