Slashdot Mirror
Mexican Government To Document Cell Phone Use
Alyssey writes "The Mexican government wants to have a database to track every cellphone number in the country (in Spanish, Google translation) and whom it belongs to. They want to tie in the CURP (Unique Registration Population Code in Spanish, like the Social Security Number in the US) with cellphone numbers. If Mexicans don't send in their number and CURP via SMS before April 10, 2010, their cellphone number will be blocked. The new law was published back in February and is going into effect now."
Undermanned?
I'm a photojournalist who works in the borderlands quite frequently.
Law enforcement in Mexico is an entrepreneurial exercise. They could have an order of magnitude more cops than they do, and it wouldn't make any difference in the world.
The present prohibition is making a class of narcolords who make Al Capone look like a big pussy.
These narcos have more money, more power and more influence than basically any other crime syndicate presently in existence. And it's moving north. Home invasions, kidnappings and drug rips are becoming the norm in suburbia anywhere within a few hundred miles of the border.
Legalizing marijuana (and possibly cocaine) would solve 96% of the problem overnight. Not to mention creating new revenue streams for the government, and maybe allowing the US to once again step behind Russia in the running to imprison the largest percentage of the population.
To the crowd: Face it. It's illegal. But your kids smoke it, your co-workers smoke it and you/your spouse smokes it. Its illegal status is not a deterrent. Wouldn't you rather know where it's coming from and that people aren't dying over it?
Legalize marijuana.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Which is why in the Netherlands, Prostitution is legal while Pimping isn't, Marijuana is CONDONED and not 100% legalized, and the focus for users of cocaine, E, Amphetamines and even heavier stuff like heroin is to Inform & Help them rather than to lock 'm up and throw away the key.
Do we have problems? Sure we do. Do we have a violent crime rate as in the US and certain other countries? No we don't. As a matter of fact, it's quite boring here. And we like it that way. Well. Some of us do at any rate.
Lastly I have to point out that the workings of Life, The Universe and Everything Else *cannot* be deduced by watching Mob movies.
I know more people that don't smoke it, then smoke it. That's false. I know a lot of different people too from different walks of life. I don't think they are hiding it either, since I am quite vocal about my positions on a great many things. I have always argued for legalization. So to say everyone is doing it, is quite a stretch for me.
I always demanded it. I knew *exactly* where mine was coming from. As in, I could touch the plants, when I went to go pick some up. I find your comment hilarious in a way too. It reminds me of blood diamonds. It would be pretty difficult to put together a certification program for people to *know* their weed comes from honest law-abiding Americans, and not the evil Mexican "narcolords".
Of course not. It was never designed to be a deterrent. That's like saying speed limits were truly designed to keep people safe.
It was truly designed as a way to control people and seize assets. Just like federal income taxes, your Social Security number, and the IRS were designed as a methodology to control people, control information, and to be used as leverage by the state. The money is incidental. It's use as an information gathering tool and a way to destroy people was deliberate.
You use Al Capone as an example which is downright fucking *hilarious* since he was ultimately taken down by the IRS.
No offense, but you annoy the shit out of me. Or more specifically, your "it's not a deterrent" and the "it would be cleaner and less risky for me to consume it" speech just rubs me the wrong way. You will never be effective in communicating the "why" when you argue for legalization when you talk about deterrents, actual usage rates, "we all use it man", etc. The people that don't smoke it, don't care. Their choice to alter their state is alcohol or prescription drugs. Your effectively arguing for something they don't understand, don't choose personally, and have no emotional or intellectual investment in protecting *for you*.
When people are opposed to something, or even indifferent, stating they are *not winning* is NEVER a productive path to get them to change their mind. That's just psychology. They have made themselves part of a group, and to say their group is losing (and them as well) can just make them stubborn, emotional, and irrational. Then they have to win to become right. Sounds insane, but then most of our behavior as a whole really is.
You need to explain to them how Pot being illegal actually affects them *very* negatively, even though they never smoked it or even hate it. I know people that outright hate it, hate the idea of getting high, and would otherwise wholeheartedly support sending your pot-smoking-hippie-ass to jail.
When I explain to them how the government actually uses it to populate prisons, seize property, control soceity, and in general have an excuse to perform actions against citizens that would otherwise be impossible in a truly free society, they become more open to the idea that it needs to be free. That, even though they hate it, other Americans should have the rights to be left in peace and make their own choices.
Truly man, change your tactics in how you go about pushing your views of legalization for pot. I agree with what you want to do, but think about it from a purely "debate team" point of view on how you can more effectively win the argument and win over your audience. Just some positive criticism (really, its intended to be positive) on how you argue for legalization.
Their war on drugs is powered by our war on drugs. In fact, it is our war on drugs, only exported across the border. During prohibition of alcohol we had an elevated level of violence in this country -- the current system is much more efficient, at least if you live in the USA. If you live in Mexico... not so much.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The collateral damage of crime surrounding narcotics is so much worse than the actual damage that the narcotics cause. Even your "way too dangerous" drug, the most dangerous thing about it is the production of it. I agree meth ravages a person and isn't something someone should be taking, but instead of throwing them in a pound-them-in-the-ass federal prison, we should be giving them counseling.
Look at tobacco and alcohol, two things that are legal, and please realize that everything you wrote is completely nonsensical. Your entire argument reads like a pro-prohibitionists argument during the 1920's. Absolutely nothing is solved by making narcotics illegal and thousands of problems are created.
By keeping Marijuana illegal we make teens think they're living on the edge when they toke a joint.
This sentence is the most ignorant of all. It sums up your complete incomprehension of the motivation of teenagers with your lack of the ability to see the major problems that prohibition causes. Just like this bill will do nothing to deter criminals in Mexico and only put more innocent people in harms way as the incentive to mug someone for their cellphone has just increased tenfold.