Laura Carlsen, director of the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy, a liberal reform organization, writes about the terrible impact of the current drug war on women in Mexico.
Her report on a recent conference of women stresses that the greatest number of those killed -- now more than 50,000, and those who have disappeared in the course of the Mexican government's assault on the power of the drug trafficking organizations are civilians who were not involved in the drug trade.
She says murder of women has increased dramatically. When the military comes to a town, rape and sexual assault increase dramatically. Women who seek investigations into the murder, disappearance or rapes of family members are subjected to harassment, threats, violence and sexual assault, according to the report.
Friday, February 03, 2012
Women: The invisible victims of the drug war in Mexico
Thursday, September 16, 2010
SSDP confronts Kerlikowske at National Press Club
Daniel Pacheco, a student from Colombia and a member of the Georgetown University Students for Sensible Drug Policy chapter, respectfully challenged Gil Kerlikowke, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, on Sept. 16, 2010 at the National Press Club, on the suggestion of the past Presidents of Colombia and Mexico, that legalizing drugs would defund the violent cartels that are ravaging Mexico. See the YouTube clip here.
Kerlikowske said a couple of times that the cartel revenues from marijuana were a "small part" of their income, and that taking away this revenue would not transform these criminal organizations.
Pacheco, politely retaking the microphone, noted that revenues from marijuana amounted to 60 to 70 percent of the cartel's total revenue -- not a small part -- and that to summarily dismiss the suggestions of the former Presidents was disrespectful to the victims of the cartel violence.
Kerlikowske then said that the 60-70 percent estimate was released by ONDCP in 2006, based on 1997 data, and therefore was out of date. He offered no better, more recent number or alternative number, and thus simply repudiated data and analysis generated by his own office.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Law Enforcement idiocy exposed by Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal has a front page story on the idiotic priorities of county sheriffs in California. They are facing enormous budget shrinkage: they are laying off deputies, closing floors of the county jail, eliminating patrols, eliminating major crimes investigators, letting convicted drunk drivers out of jail early (predicting that they will drink and drive and hurt people). But they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their scarce local funds to cut down marijuana plants because the Federal government will give them grants to help cover some of the costs. Do they even arrest the marijuana growers who they say are dangerous fiends from the Mexican drug trafficking organizations? No. They make arrests only 10 percent of the time.
How does it make sense for law enforcement agencies to knowingly endanger public safety in order to cut down marijuana plants?
How does it make sense for the Federal government, which is going to spend more than $1.3 trillion this year that it has to borrow, to cut down marijuana plants?
This is the scenario: The U.S. borrows dollars from the Chinese to pay cops who can't catch criminals from Mexico to cut down marijuana in California that when used as intended won't hurt people as much as alcohol and drunk drivers.
Posts
