Former President of Mexico Fox calls on US to legalize drugs .

[ttystikk]

I knew I liked this guy... Vicente Fox was the best thing to happen to Mexico since hot chiles. Read on:

Former President of Mexico Fox calls on US to legalize drugs

San Cristobal, Guanajuato -- President Vicente Fox is among a growing number of leaders in Latin America calling on the U.S. to legalize drugs to reduce violence and organized crime.
"Prohibitions don't work, and the last remaining frontier of prohibition is drug, and we should questions ourselves why drugs," Fox said.
It's the same question President Barack Obama will hear from some of the leaders gathered at the Summit of the Americas this weekend in Colombia during talks about drug policies in the region.
"This war on drugs is totally lost," said Fox, the former president, during an interview at his sprawling ranch, where he built the first presidential library in Mexico.
Fox continues to speak out about issues even after leaving office, another first since most former presidents quietly retreat from public life.
And the man who ended 71 years of one party rule with his election victor is speaking out on the drug war as the current presidential race heats up.
"This problem is killing us, so I really hope whoever wants to be sitting in the presidential chair as of December of this year, he better have a solution to this," Fox said. "We cannot keep going as we are today."
Fox is critical of the current president's drug war strategy. Current President Felipe Calderon is a fellow PAN party member, who began a crackdown on drug cartels shortly after taking office in 2006.
"When you go against the same wall for five years and nothing changes, but it's getting worse," Fox said. "You have to do something . And leaders have to recognize when you have to change."
Part of the change he advocates is legalization, and not just marijuana.
"I would go on legalization all the way -- all drugs and in all places. Why? Because I think it's immoral," Fox said. "It's not ethical that we request from government or the state to take responsibility as to whether our kids or our citizens use drugs. It's a personal, individual decision."
It's a controversial position, but he says Mexico needs creative solutions as it copes with a drug war that has killed more than 50,000 people since 2006.
"We're losing tourism. We're losing foreign investment. We're losing hope," Fox said. "Our young people don't know what to think. What faith can they have in the future?"
"Our business community is moving out with their families to Dallas, Houston, San Diego, Miami, even Toronto," Fox said about the families who've left Mexico to escape violent crime including kidnappings and extortion.
The former president says he wants his library to serve as a place to debate ideas and inspire the next generation of leaders in Mexico.
More than 200,000 people visited "Centro Fox" this past year. Many were students including 70,000 school children from rural areas of Mexico who went through a five hour course about democracy and leadership.
The program is called "president for a day." The highlight: children get the chance to sit in the chair in a replica of the presidential office.
"The whole idea is to change their minds and what they think their destiny might be, of just being migrants or working construction, or harvesting fields," Fox said.
His most pressing concern: "We need peace, and we need peace as soon as possible."

Link to video:

 

[squiggly]

I've always said arguing that marijuana is medical is a noble thing, but forgetting to include all drugs in the call for legalization precludes us from making the case that we don't need a law to protect us from ourselves (and that such a law is, in fact, unconstitutional).

They've got us all convinced that when something is bad, like meth or heroin, you need a law for it.

That is categorically untrue, and represents a severe miscarriage of the intentions the constitution laid forth.

Legalize all of it, and see the world improve exponentially. You will snip at the root 80% of the income to the world's scum, overnight. This is precisely the rationale that was used for re-legalizing liquor. They were losing the war to gang violence, and they decided they'd rather have drunks than people killing cops.

I think it's about time we made the same easy decision in this country--and that's only in a completely self-righteous and self-serving way. When we consider that we forcibly (through trade) compulse most countries in the world to be signatories to our anti-drug treaties as a prerequisite for selling anything to or in America--it becomes a global issue and a problem of our own creation that we are now leaving children in other countries on the hook for.

 

[ttystikk]

^^^^^^DAMN STRAIGHT!

I agree with every syllable you wrote above, Squiggly- Americans are so used to having their constitutional rights trampled on that most of us don't even think twice about it anymore. You've eloquently stated my position on drugs and the US' forcible destruction of our constitution in the 'service' of 'protecting us from ourselves' for far too long.

Since when did we cede the right to protect us from ourselves to the Feds? Since when was that an excuse to deprive us of our liberty? Show me where in the Constitution it says a damn thing about the government's 'right' to tell us what we can and can't do to ourselves in the privacy of our own homes!

 

[baba G]

The war on drugs is just like our other wars, money making power grabs...
Just an ignorant question; what was Mr. Fox doing while he was president? He could have addressed this and maybe started the ball rolling...

 

[squiggly]

The war on drugs is just like our other wars, money making power grabs...
Just an ignorant question; what was Mr. Fox doing while he was president? He could have addressed this and maybe started the ball rolling...

He was doing the same thing most presidents do.

Waiting for their constituencies to realize they aren't kings, as much as they'd love to be, and vote in some competent congressmen.

 

[ttystikk]

The war on drugs is just like our other wars, money making power grabs...
Just an ignorant question; what was Mr. Fox doing while he was president? He could have addressed this and maybe started the ball rolling...

He was doing the same thing most presidents do.

Waiting for their constituencies to realize they aren't kings, as much as they'd love to be, and vote in some competent congressmen.

He did all he could in this direction while he was in office, but he had other priorities, too- it must be said that building a nation covers a lot more ground than a few drug laws.

If he would have tried while he was President, he would have had his head handed to him on a plate, perhaps literally! He would have been too far ahead of his time and too far ahead of his supporters.

Elder statesmen can get away with saying things after they've left office that those who follow would agree with, but for many politically valid reasons can't say themselves. With luck, this can give political cover to the current officeholders, helping the process of change.

By way of specific example: George Shultz, Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan from 1982-1989, has repeatedly spoken out in favor of relaxing drug prohibitions after his retirement from public office. What do you think would have happened to him had he mentioned it while still at State?

 

[baba G]

Well, due to George Shultz not saying anything in office sure helped Nancy with "Just say No!"
Had he mentioned something in office, we might have had a national/public debate and started what needs to be started instead of pussyfooting around it...
I do agree somewhat with "they don't bite the hands that feeds them" while in office, they just keep turning a blind eye and waiting til they have no power.
So, since George Shultz waited to speak out in favor of relaxing drug laws, has that had much of an effect?

 

[baba G]

I'm just playing devils advocate and washing things around in my head...
Also, you mention if he did advocate it while he was Pres of Mexico he would have got his head cut off...Alright, that sounds believable; but ultimately someone that is in POWER needs to address this and when will they have no opposition or scare of getting their head cut off? Oh yeah, just hand it off to the next leader...
So, how do you think we might get this ball rolling? Just keep waiting for politicians to get to it, or stand up for our rights??

 

[ttystikk]

I'm just playing devils advocate and washing things around in my head...
Also, you mention if he did advocate it while he was Pres of Mexico he would have got his head cut off...Alright, that sounds believable; but ultimately someone that is in POWER needs to address this and when will they have no opposition or scare of getting their head cut off? Oh yeah, just hand it off to the next leader...
So, how do you think we might get this ball rolling? Just keep waiting for politicians to get to it, or stand up for our rights??

I don't mind a devil's advocate point of view, it can be useful to look at the opposite case.

If Sec. of State Shultz had mentioned legalizing pot while he was in office, it would immediately been the end of his career, and his job was- and remains- a central one to the effectiveness of America's diplomatic strategy worldwide. Sinking the whole boat to plug a small leak isn't progress.

I agree that someone who is currently IN power has to make the move. Elder statesmen do their part by voicing the politically difficult positions once they're out of power, yet still have great influence in the public discourse- and if they were worth a damn in office, their prestige can go a long way.

Not all the way, however. That's where we the people must step in and demand change. If the current office holder is getting it from the masses AND from the former officeholders, it becomes much easier for him to move in that direction.

 

[baba G]

Good post bro,
I'd say if Shultz would have spoke up on the fact that our contitutional rights were being trampled I'd think he would have started a ball rolling.
And if it would have been the end of career, they would have hired or appointed someone else to do what he does, the world would still prob be eerily similar or the same...
I guess the question is, who will sacrifice for the greater good of the people and our rights??

 

[baba G]

When you tease/pay these politicians all this excess money, they tend to do what the $$ tells em, take away some $$ motivation and you'll see politicians do things for people not $$ advancement and personal $$ security. But that is a whole other thread and a revolution away from ever happening...

 

[squiggly]

The answer is that it must be us to do that baba G. We all need to sacrifice the partisanship and the battling ideologies and form a movement together and make our demands. While I love pot, I think there's a few other things which should top the list before we get that rolling.

Congress has made it very clear they won't be doing us any favors so long as we allow the body to maintain its institution and decorum. We need average joes in there--not a bunch of ninny rich boys who've been groomed for their "public service" since age 10.

 

[baba G]

Yep, bingo!
Take the millionaires out of politics and put some people who represent their peers...

 

[baba G]

Coincidence that congress and the politicians are richer than the rest, NO, but America has many people asleep at the wheel...
I mean when an Apple store opening creates more publicity and action then the laws that are passed behind our backs daily...well, whats for dinner? Def an ipad and the new apps...lol

 

[baba G]

Hey squiggly, this isn't a "pot" thing for me, it's basic rights...But we happen to be on a pot site, so pot comes up.

 

[squiggly]

I'll say it again.

We need to do it.

The president really matters SO LITTLE, and I think that is the ultimate trick of American politics. We focus so heavily on the president that we forget that CONGRESS is the most powerful entity in this land, and that they control essentially everything. The president merely okays or vetos what they put forward.

People want to blame Obama because they disagree with him ideologically in some areas, but the fact is most of the failings of the last four years fall in congress' lap. They haven't done or tried to do anything except jockey for political position.

It pains me to say it, but the same can be said for the last two years of Bush's presidency, and that falls on a democratic, not republican, congress---bush had sway for the first six years because he had most of congress to go along with it.

No one can really start to deride Obama until he's seen more than 3 bills (maybe 15-20 would be a more realistic number for how fast things change in the world today)--and at least 10% of those being policy, rather than emergency, bills.

The big problem is you've got 500 old dudes/ladies of which half believe they know it all, and they other half believe they know it all--but come to a different conclusion.

The absolutely undeniable fact is that none of them was bitten by a radioactive guru and given wisdom and capacity for knowledge which surpasses an average human's exponentially out to several orders of magnitude. That is the type of brain power you would need to have the foresight to predict even the economy--and that is only one thing these people are supposed to decide on.

The truth is they are 500 people limited by their intelligence (and I mean that in a strictly factual way) and they will do better working together rather than agreeing that they've both got it all figured out and splitting the numbers down the middle.

It sickens me that we actually have solid scientific process to determine things like social interactions, corruption, critical thinking--and we put none of it to use in government.

Read up on Dan Ariely, watch some of his TED talks. This is a person who can pick apart how people act irrationally and why they do it. The title of his book, predictably irrational, sets the stage for what he talks about.

That we can do clear science like Mr. Ariely has done and not apply it to policy at large is stomach-turning for me.

What we're looking at is the end result of people not questioning themselves enough--it is the result of our feeble and failed attempts to dimish our egos, and that goes for every one of us myself included.

Until Americans realize that none of these old fucks, nor any of the shit they are saying to you, represent a solution (or even a path to one) for any of our problems--we will keep finding ourselves inundated by problems created by the same body which is supposed to be fielding and solving them.

 

[squiggly]

I'm posting the following not as an endorsement, but rather as a place which has pretty much assembled everything about how to execute a blueprint for putting a "citizen's party" on the ballot.

http://www.americanselect.org/

They're attempting to do it for the president here. I say even if its not the intent, that ends up being a bait and switch when said and done.

Instead we need to be doing the same thing for congress, and for state legislature. People need to band together, agree to disagree on certain things and then agree also to find people who THEY think will do the right thing. Not the option that you are given between two party members in accordance with the endorsements from some old "institutionalized", if you will, fucks.

Put the guy that YOU pick on the ballot, and send him to the house or the senate. If you multiply that times 50 states and however many districts and you have the rebirth of America.

Fail to do it, and our decline is assured. Establishment is not the problem. Big government isn't even the problem. It's big government done the wrong way which is a problem. I say it's not okay anymore to decide that people will always do things the wrong way and so we mustn't trust them. I reject that notion entirely.

I say we should decide who will do it the right way for us, and that it shouldn't have anything to do with maintaining some kind of pissing match that's been going on for 100 years. I think it's the specific establishments we've got (which frankly have been HORRIBLY perverted from their original doctrines/formats), which are the problem--not an endemic problem with all establishment.

With all 300 million of us here, what are the chances that 100 some (if even that many) upper echelon democrats or republicans could hand pick the best 4 candidates for us to choose from. Make no mistake that if we want to be the best, we need the best men for the job--in every job. That's something congress points out in various other areas (like the military), but they fail to train the sights on themselves from time to time. Can you blame them? The Constitution doesn't because it has seen to it that we have the power to train the sights on congress.

I, personally, think we'd do better if 300million people weighed in on the issue. We have the technology and the capability to make those voices heard, and to create a synthesis of our desires. We have the power--under the constitution and without using any type of legal loop hole--to take power as people and make this happen. Now we just need the gumption to swallow our egos, and the intelligence to spot bullshit when it's being fed to us--and we need it on a massive scale.

Therein is the problem. How do you scale up the simple knowledge that we can take the power back, that its written into our laws. Perhaps 35% and maybe even as high as 50% of Americans would probably distrust that they have such power if you told them so, and it can be hard to reach all those people to even tell them in the first place. Beyond that, getting people to believe in a cause is disgustingly hard in America. You can scarcely name a movement of any size in the past 25 years if you compare it with some of the goings on of the 60s-70s. The closest thing was maybe the occupy wall street people, but even that was a fairly small blip by comparison.

People have lost their fucking oomph. They'd rather have the answers and their convictions spoon fed to them at prime time than go about the business of discovering them on their own. I can't say that I blame them--it's difficult to ask hard questions. These are peoples lives we're talking about when we get into politics, and that's why it is so touchy and it always has been.

Social media presents a possible vehicle--but it's the message that we're in need of. We need someone who people will listen to. I fear if we don't get it the decline has begun for our great nation. Hats off to whoever takes the crown, I can tell you that at least half of my money is going to be in Asia at all times before I'm 50 if nothing changes.

 

[dirk d]

Legalize all of it, and see the world improve exponentially. You will snip at the root 80% of the income to the world's scum, overnight.

Problem is that these people run the governments and have the power. IMO its time that every person in America started voicing their opinions to our elected leaders. We need to stop letting others decide our future.

 

[baba G]

Hey squiggly..you gotta agree the medical cannabis is the biggest movement in last 25years...even more than one state agrees and tons of people...it's something we can have in common to help fight this beast of a govt we've created.

 

[squiggly]

Hey squiggly..you gotta agree the medical cannabis is the biggest movement in last 25years...even more than one state agrees and tons of people...it's something we can have in common to help fight this beast of a govt we've created.

Agreed, but I'm talking about these visceral, in your face not-going-anywhere movements from the past. Where the fan had literally already hit all of the shit there was to offer, and something was going to change before it stopped. There haven't been any movements that "feel" like that, and those are the types of movements that bring change.

I believe the video here will shed some light on what's needed here--and why we're not getting it now, or rather how we're not getting it.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html