Drug Legalization on the Agenda at Summit of Americas

[LaserGuy]

Unsurprisingly, President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper came out firmly against legalization, although did leave the door open to other, unspecified options that could be looked at. Canada and the United States were also the two countries who continued to refuse to allow Cuba to be included in the summits (all other countries were in favour), the exclusion of whom already resulting in the President of Ecuador boycotting the summit.

The next summit is apparently scheduled for 2015.

[Prefanity]

He said Orwellian, not Kafkaesque.

Please no meat touching mam.

I had to do it.

[addams]

Unsurprisingly, President Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper came out firmly against legalization, although did leave the door open to other, unspecified options that could be looked at. Canada and the United States were also the two countries who continued to refuse to allow Cuba to be included in the summits (all other countries were in favour), the exclusion of whom already resulting in the President of Ecuador boycotting the summit.

The next summit is apparently scheduled for 2015.

Dickwellian.
The whole rest of the world must have the permission of the US and Canada before they can get on with the actions of making their own worlds safer and more sane?

They might be wrong. But; We know for a fact that the US is wrong. The US has been running things very badly for a long time. The people south of the US border are not children. They have the right to invite anyone they want to their party. They have the right to self determination.

Very upset here. Fuck Obama! Fuck Harper!
Those guys are no fun at all. How about the other nations have a new meeting and not allow the Bullies to attend? Maybe there would be some movement toward something better.

The US is such a mess. How dare they dictate what other nations can and can not do?

So; The party is over and nothing can be done to stop the War until 2015?

That may not sound like a long time to you, but, it does to me.

[Angua]

There are some meetings which I assume the US don't attend, as apparently Castro's brother and Chavez were at a meeting for something in St Kitts a couple of years ago (it was about energy trading within the Caribbean region). I'm not sure what meeting that was though (unless they turned up to a normal CARICOM meeting or something).

[addams]

There are some meetings which I assume the US don't attend, as apparently Castro's brother and Chavez were at a meeting for something in St Kitts a couple of years ago (it was about energy trading within the Caribbean region). I'm not sure what meeting that was though (unless they turned up to a normal CARICOM meeting or something).

Yeah. But; This is important.

The US and Canada, just, said, "No." to anything that the people effected want to attempt to do to make their worlds better.

Canada may be, just, backing the US. The US has too many problems of its own to be dictating policy for other nations.

I am not happy about the outcome. It is a dead end. The people need more than another 'dead end'.

[Chen]

Other countries are perfectly free to legalize whatever drugs they want. Clearly though if they want to continue exporting said drugs to the US/Canada they'll need the US and Canada's agreement as well for them to be legal. I don't see how having a meeting without the US would change this.

[Izawwlgood]

Other countries are perfectly free to legalize whatever drugs they want. Clearly though if they want to continue exporting said drugs to the US/Canada they'll need the US and Canada's agreement as well for them to be legal. I don't see how having a meeting without the US would change this.

Because the issue isn't the legality of drugs in other countries, it's the amount of money illegal elements are able to make by bringing illegal drugs into the US. The War on Drugs isn't hurting Mexico because Mexico has a huge problem with Mexicans doing cocaine; it's hurting Mexico because Mexican cartels are richer than God from all the cocaine they bring into the US.

The US refusing to legalize is the equivalent of telling those countries 'no, we'd rather that extrodinarily wealthy violent element no one in the world has the resources to deal with continues being extrodinarily wealthy'.

[Angua]

Not to mention the fact that the US has a nasty habit of enforcing economic sanctions or withdrawing aid whenever a different country does something they don't agree with (which I accept is the US's perogative). Which means that not only would the cartels stay rich, but the rest of the country risks becoming even poorer.

[Zamfir]

For comparison, I like to think of the attitude of (for example) the French government to exporters of alcohol to Saudi Arabia. i suppose they don't actively support smugglers, but they won' t attach much moral stigma to the action, and presumably do not have it high on the priority list of the law enforcement agencies.

And everyone before that last step is an upright and respected citizen, whose drug fields are celebrated in tourist guides, and where the government gives every support when someone wants to build drug processing plants and transportation infrastructure to exporting harbours.

In theory, Mexico or Bolivia could adopt a similar attitude towards other narcotics. Encourage well-regulated and taxed production companies, build new highways from the fields to harbours and the US border region, then say "oops" when at the end some wrongly-labeled containers happen to turn up in the US.

In practice, this won't happen, because the US (and other countries, and quite some citizens of Mexico or Bolivia themselves) would react mighty pissed off and tell the countries to stop it. I assume that Saudi-Arabia would like to react in a similar way to French wine producers, but they lack the international cloud and backing.

[Izawwlgood]

In some short sighted ways, I suppose it could be argued that it's to the US's benefit. By forcing Mexico or such to spend enormous amounts of resources on fighting these cartels, and even helping them fight those cartels, the US keeps them from developing as competitors, and simultaneously ensures that they are reliant upon foreign aid. It also ensues that the US is able to maintain a forceful presence abroad.

Pretty maddening stuff. All in the name of securing the soccer mom vote and keep our prisons flush with people who sold a bag of pot.

[addams]

For comparison, I like to think of the attitude of (for example) the French government to exporters of alcohol to Saudi Arabia. i suppose they don't actively support smugglers, but they won' t attach much moral stigma to the action, and presumably do not have it high on the priority list of the law enforcement agencies.

And everyone before that last step is an upright and respected citizen, whose drug fields are celebrated in tourist guides, and where the government gives every support when someone wants to build drug processing plants and transportation infrastructure to exporting harbours.

In theory, Mexico or Bolivia could adopt a similar attitude towards other narcotics. Encourage well-regulated and taxed production companies, build new highways from the fields to harbours and the US border region, then say "oops" when at the end some wrongly-labeled containers happen to turn up in the US.

In practice, this won't happen, because the US (and other countries, and quite some citizens of Mexico or Bolivia themselves) would react mighty pissed off and tell the countries to stop it. I assume that Saudi-Arabia would like to react in a similar way to French wine producers, but they lack the international cloud and backing.

The world of things that I don't know amazes me.
That would work.
Or; The Las Vagas model.

The US is so in the Red. (Well; That is what I hear.) How can a bankrupt country use money to force everyone else to do their will?
Another thing that I could understand, if, it were explained.

I am still upset that the US was able to decide on the guest list. How bad would it have been for them to have a meal with a person from a little island nation, like, Cuba?

What?! Did someone in the US think that over the main course the Cuban might say, "Hey! You! Will you get your Black Site off our island?!"

The US wants to keep the war on drugs burning brightly. But; The international laws against imprisonment and torture are not a problem?
I don't feel well and those people upset me.

Yeah. And; what this guy wrote:
In some short sighted ways, I suppose it could be argued that it's to the US's benefit. By forcing Mexico or such to spend enormous amounts of resources on fighting these cartels, and even helping them fight those cartels, the US keeps them from developing as competitors, and simultaneously ensures that they are reliant upon foreign aid. It also ensues that the US is able to maintain a forceful presence abroad.

Pretty maddening stuff. All in the name of securing the soccer mom vote and keep our prisons flush with people who sold a bag of pot.

Land of Freedom? Pot, really, is a garden plant. And; Not everyone likes it. Not everyone reacts the same to it.
The good news it that it is legal in several states.

Oh. Yuck. I have gone from being an idealist to being a cynic. I hate that. Maybe, something will happen to change my mind, again.

[Izawwlgood]

A bit OT:

Pot, really, is a garden plant

Not that I disagree, but I find that to be a really poor argument. Poppies are also garden plants, but I wouldn't call opium the equivalent of pot. Psilocybin cybensis is easier to grow than pot; I also wouldn't put it on the same level as marijuana.

What?! Did someone in the US think that over the main course the Cuban might say, "Hey! You! Will you get your Black Site off our island?!"

Actually, I wager that has to do more with the USs embargo against Cuba, which is equally laughable at this point in time, to the war on drugs.

[lutzj]

In practice, this won't happen, because the US (and other countries, and quite some citizens of Mexico or Bolivia themselves) would react mighty pissed off and tell the countries to stop it. I assume that Saudi-Arabia would like to react in a similar way to French wine producers, but they lack the international cloud and backing.

In this case, it's also possible or even likely that some of the individual higher-ups in Saudi Arabia don't mind some wine leaking in.

[Zamfir]

More than some higher ups in the US like weed or coke? If anything, forbidden fruits taste better, and even better when they underline how the rules do no aply to people like you.

[Griffin]

Other countries are perfectly free to legalize whatever drugs they want. Clearly though if they want to continue exporting said drugs to the US/Canada they'll need the US and Canada's agreement as well for them to be legal. I don't see how having a meeting without the US would change this.

Of course, the US is the one that's more than willing to ship bucketloads of weaponry to Mexico in exchange for those drugs, so yeah... I think US policy matters. Even if these countries had drugs as 100% legal, they'd still suffer many of the drawbacks from prohibition, because most of the demand would still come from the US.

[addams]

A bit OT:

Pot, really, is a garden plant

Not that I disagree, but I find that to be a really poor argument. Poppies are also garden plants, but I wouldn't call opium the equivalent of pot. Psilocybin cybensis is easier to grow than pot; I also wouldn't put it on the same level as marijuana.

What?! Did someone in the US think that over the main course the Cuban might say, "Hey! You! Will you get your Black Site off our island?!"

Actually, I wager that has to do more with the USs embargo against Cuba, which is equally laughable at this point in time, to the war on drugs.

Umm. Yes. I have grown Poppies. Very nice ones. The large Red ones. I don't want them for Opium.
I have grown Pot. It is easier than Poppies.
The Mushrooms. Not as easy as you make it sound. I killed my last mold. Molds are easier than fungi. Well; Some people have the touch.
All of that is related, but, not central to the issue.

We have a War! Let us define terms.
If, it is a war of terror, then, who is frightened?
Who are they frightened of?
The people of the US are frightened of the poverty and the Police and each other.

Drugs? Is it a war on drugs? The drugs have won. Let's surrender. Now; Let us get on with something more interesting. Let people try what they will. We can.

O.K. The US guys don't want to eat with the Cubans, because of the embargo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ainst_Cuba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ndividuals
"The President has outlined a series of steps that Cuba could take to demonstrate a willingness to open its closed society, including releasing political prisoners, allowing United States"
Hey! Isn't this backwards. The US has prisoners in Cuba!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo ... ntion_camp
It does seem that Mr. Obama has attempted to shut the thing down. He is getting Stonewalled; Not nice US congress. What is wrong with those people?
What is the US doing with a black site there? That, just, confounds me.

Way back when I was a pub, I was told that to get and keep the interest of the people make it about sex. O.K. The Americans in their Black Site in Cuba made it about sex.
They did. I remember it.
It should not be that easy to forget.