Ecuador Elections to Take Place After Assassinations

apnews.com...

The unprecedented violence shaking Ecuador claimed the life of another political leader Monday, bringing the number of politics-related slayings within the last four weeks to three, including that of a presidential candidate.

CNN says its even worse

Even before the assassination of presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio who was shot leaving a political rally earlier this month, at least half a dozen local politicians had been assassinated over the last year, according to Will Freeman, a fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council of Foreign Relations who visited Ecuador in May.

time.com...

Sadly Ecuador is on the crossroads of the drug trade = criminals

Gangs from Mexico, Venezuela, and Colombia are now all fiercely competing for territorial control over Ecuador’s ports, which are well connected to markets in Europe and Asia.

I must disagree with my fellow USA persons who say drugs are a victimless crime. the money we pay for drugs fuels the cartels that are ruining our neighbors down South.

I'm thinking zero tolerance, if we are serious about stopping all this.

a reply to: ElGoobero

the opposite: legalise it all and make it only allowed in social clubs to take drugs. State controlled distribution.
The only way to destroy business is to offer a better cheaper product.

a reply to: ElGoobero
Want to try a funny logic I learned around here that helped me lose an indoctrinated fear of guns...

Drugs don't kill people, people kill people....

Joking aside...

The bird apparently never landed and operation condor is ongoing?

Hardly the first time the CeyeA meddels in South American politics.

It's not that they weren't interested in the drug business, but surely only to stop it.
They wouldn't dare to order hit jobs against politicians that threat to complicate the most lucrative business. One they've been found meddling in...

A whole bunch of politicians in half a year, sounds resourceful for drug cartels that are mainly occupied with turf wars...

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: ElGoobero

the opposite: legalise it all and make it only allowed in social clubs to take drugs. State controlled distribution.
The only way to destroy business is to offer a better cheaper product.

Only the “state,” in the case of the USA has not created a better, cheaper product. In Oregon, California, Colorado etc… the cost per gram of legal marijuana has served to bolster the black market sales of illegal marijuana, with much cheaper by the ounce prices.

I have a close acquaintance with a few legal grows and a dispensary in S. Oregon, many are being pushed out of business by the glut of cheaper weed coming in.

The issue in Ecuador is intriguing. Didn’t the Bush family purchase thousands of acres in Ecuador some time ago? I question who is behind the activities at present with that family and their intelligence connections. Haven’t we linked a great deal of cartel activity with intelligence “black money?”

🤷🏼‍♂️

a reply to: BlueJacket

that's not the same though because they're all capitalist enterprises in themselves who thought brand is enough to sell high, like usual.
So that's very far from what I have in mind.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: ElGoobero

the opposite: legalise it all and make it only allowed in social clubs to take drugs. State controlled distribution.
The only way to destroy business is to offer a better cheaper product.

You are dead wrong!

Offering a better cheaper product does not destroy the business; it just puts others in control of it, probably someone more astute (and in this case probalby more dangerous). The only way to destroy a business is to obliterate demand for the product it offers. Without demand, there is no reason for the business to exist. As long as there is demand, there will always be competition for the market, and "illegal" competion will continue as long as it remains viable.

I'm not excited about the idea of wholesale legalzation. As someone who has never taken drugs and been inebrieated with alcohol only once in nearly sixty years of life, i can't see the draw in it and consider anyone who intoxicates to be something of an idiot. I see the damage that addiction does to individuals, families, and entire communities. I have no need for that in my life and plainly see that anyone who does is deeply lacking something somewhere, using intoxication to try to fill in some void.

On the other hand, nothing that has been done up to now has had any success in dealing with the issue. Idiots in the upper eschelons of government talk about military actions inside of other sovereign nations to squelch the supply. The problem is not on the supply side, but on the demand side. As long as there is demand, there will be supply.

There is a soul sickness that has infected society and it is the root of the perceived need for intoxicating substances. Until that soul sickness is addressed and remedied, the demand will continue, and as long as there is demand, there will be criminal enterprises looking to profit - whether it's the self-legitimizing criminal enterprise of government or other organized crime syndicates.

Trying to fix the problem by legalizing drugs is like trying to heal diarrhea caused by food poisoning by eating a different bad food. Legalizing drugs will not have any substantial impact on the problems created in places like Ecuador by demand in places like the United States. Again, as long as there is demand, the criminal enterprisers that are profiting on it will continue to find ways to profit.

:

a reply to: Peeple
Because you use "social club" and that is the buzzword here currently..

Nana, no smoking in our new [redacted] social clubs allowed. Only growing, socializing and information exchange.

a reply to: incoserv

dude I said state controlled so that means government. If that causes you anxiety... okay, not paranoid people would say it is more important to focus on the official criminal organizations.
If that's who you want to protect because your gov is so evil you made your choice.

getting high doesn't immediately mean addict.
You can rant how disgusting it all is it won't change a thing though because people take drugs for all kinds of different reasons.
The problem is when there is no education around it how much of what under which circumstances is fine, with products that arent laced with dirty #.
Or are just extremely damaging in general.

All the cracking down on drugs in the 'War' has done nothing to improve the situation has it? So your solution: keep doing the same crap that just made things worse
doesn't work in reality.

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: ElGoobero

the opposite: legalise it all and make it only allowed in social clubs to take drugs. State controlled distribution.
The only way to destroy business is to offer a better cheaper product.

You are dead wrong!

Offering a better cheaper product does not destroy the business; it just puts others in control of it, probably someone more astute (and in this case probalby more dangerous). The only way to destroy a business is to obliterate demand for the product it offers. Without demand, there is no reason for the business to exist. As long as there is demand, there will always be competition for the market, and "illegal" competion will continue as long as it remains viable.

I'm not excited about the idea of wholesale legalzation. As someone who has never taken drugs and been inebrieated with alcohol only once in nearly sixty years of life, i can't see the draw in it and consider anyone who intoxicates to be something of an idiot. I see the damage that addiction does to individuals, families, and entire communities. I have no need for that in my life and plainly see that anyone who does is deeply lacking something somewhere, using intoxication to try to fill in some void.

On the other hand, nothing that has been done up to now has had any success in dealing with the issue. Idiots in the upper eschelons of government talk about military actions inside of other sovereign nations to squelch the supply. The problem is not on the supply side, but on the demand side. As long as there is demand, there will be supply.

There is a soul sickness that has infected society and it is the root of the perceived need for intoxicating substances. Until that soul sickness is addressed and remedied, the demand will continue, and as long as there is demand, there will be criminal enterprises looking to profit - whether it's the self-legitimizing criminal enterprise of government or other organized crime syndicates.

Trying to fix the problem by legalizing drugs is like trying to heal diarrhea caused by food poisoning by eating a different bad food. Legalizing drugs will not have any substantial impact on the problems created in places like Ecuador by demand in places like the United States. Again, as long as there is demand, the criminal enterprisers that are profiting on it will continue to find ways to profit.

:

My herb is grown on Native American land. Your straight edge lifestyle only makes you less informed on the subject. Local grow absolutely takes away from the black market.

More over the political challenges being boiled down to zero drug tolerance in America is a misinformed at best.

a reply to: incoserv

There is a soul sickness that has infected society and it is the root of the perceived need for intoxicating substances. Until that soul sickness is addressed and remedied, the demand will continue, and as long as there is demand, there will be criminal enterprises looking to profit - whether it's the self-legitimizing criminal enterprise of government or other organized crime syndicates.

That's pretty brazen text and speech for someone openly hating other people (like me, for example) and you are the one preaching about soul sicknesses?

Thick.

a reply to: Peeple
I get you. Agreed, on that front

originally posted by: incoserv
a reply to: Peeple
The only way to destroy a business is to obliterate demand for the product it offers. Without demand, there is no reason for the business to exist. As long as there is demand, there will always be competition for the market, and "illegal" competion will continue as long as it remains viable.

There is only one, simple, fundamental problem with this view.

It is absolutely impossible to 'destroy demand' for something if you want to live in anything that even remotely resembles a free society. It simply cannot be done.

I'm not excited about the idea of wholesale legalzation.

I'm not excited about the idea of living life under a tyrannical puritanical regime that presumes to legislate morality.

As a recovered/recovering drug addict of 35+ years, I fully support the wholesale decriminalization of all drugs, as long as they are taxed and regulated the same way alcohol and tobacco are - ie, severe penalties for selling to minors. I'd even be in favor of the death penalty in certain cases). I'd also like to see a legal requirement that all taxes for drugs and alcohol be allocated to treatment programs.

As someone who has never taken drugs and been inebrieated with alcohol only once in nearly sixty years of life, i can't see the draw in it and consider anyone who intoxicates to be something of an idiot.

Gee.... holier than thou much?

I see the damage that addiction does to individuals, families, and entire communities.

And I've lived it.

I have no need for that in my life

That is your decision to make,... for yourself.

and plainly see that anyone who does is deeply lacking something somewhere, using intoxication to try to fill in some void.

That is your opinion, and while almost certainly correct in many cases, it is irrelevant..

On the other hand, nothing that has been done up to now has had any success in dealing with the issue.

Exactly. Your idea of destroying the demand has demonstrably failed, miserably, and actually has made the situation much, much worse - without the war on drugs there would be no drug cartels.

Idiots in the upper eschelons of government talk about military actions inside of other sovereign nations to squelch the supply. The problem is not on the supply side, but on the demand side. As long as there is demand, there will be supply.

There will always be demand. Always. No matter how much your puritanical feelings scream about it.