Public Safety Signals

John Means Says:

One of the things that I took from my Masters program is that our current drug policy does not work. One of the definitions of insanity is to continue to do the same things and expect different results.

Our crack down on the manufacture of Meth in the US has pushed the drug production into Mexico. This coupled with the profits associated with Marijuania and Cocaine have led to the destabilization of Northern Mexico.

We as a nation must find a way to limit the demand for these products. I don’t believe legalization will work, but I don’t know what will work. I only know what doesn’t and that is our current policies.
The really frightening part is that I don’t think anyone has a handle on this problem.

May 30th, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Scott W. Hedlund Says:

The increase in transnational crime and terrorism have become more extensive as sophisticated communication and logistical support has developed over time. The focus on drug trafficing continues to shift away when increases in terrorism occur. Mature criminal organizations use funding and their ability to bring in supplies to terrorists to increase terrorist activity so the focus shifts away from them. These linkages are key to understanding how to cripple and destroy initial or advanced terrorist organizations in countires that have an economic basis is illegal drugs.

June 3rd, 2008 at 7:23 am

Mark Rubin Says:

I believe that there are two distinct issues here. First is the obvious danger faced by officials in other ountries vis-a-vis the far-reaching influence and the deep pockets fo drug lords in third world countries. The second issue is more pervasive in the United States. Rather than confront the drus issue head-on, we tend to turn a blind-eye to small production facilities. Law enforcement in general has become obsessed with making the big seizures (thus taking a share of the funds available through asset liquidation). As both a police officer and school teacher, I have sworn out searc warrants on a few students homes in the past month and seized approx 1000 lbs of hydro. this is not a large enough amount to even make a local paper, let alone the NYTimes. Couple this with departmental “pet projects”, and we find a general purposeful ignorance to a compounding issue…the more we exclusively target big issues, the bigger the little issues become.

June 4th, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Dino Sgambellone Says:

I agree with Mark in terms of what local law enforcement can do locally to impact the flow of illegal drugs into communities and neighborhoods. I can do little to interrupt the flow of drugs across the border, but I can make a difference within the community. I think it is important to maintain that perspective.

For those in positions that do have influence in terms of the border, they need to be proactive in terms of new strategies, utilizing emerging technologies, and collaborating with a host of resources. If a new strategy does not work, you can always go back to what isn’t working now.

June 7th, 2008 at 8:49 am

Jacqueline Black-Polk Says:

I totally agree with you Dino in terms of being proactive in developing “new strategies, utilizing emerging technologies, and collaborating with a host of resources”. Priority needs to be placed supporting our agencies with up to date technology in addressing drug enforcement, but we must also recognize collaboration within the communities, local agencies, schools and peers to address the demand which fuel the supply. Thanks, J

June 9th, 2008 at 7:05 pm

Michael Brown Says:

The eventual migration of terror cells from across the border is inevitable. Groups, such as MS13, and the Lords have already infiltrated the United States Army in order to learn tactics, weapons and gain access to armament. This is going to prove to be a real serious policy making issue, particularly when it is not easy to single out the enemy amongst the populace.

June 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Robert Muse Says:

The following is just an exploratory comparison about theory, politics, and citizens that possibly aware and have taken a volunteer action combined together to present other views.

To accomplish permanent changes in habits, many tools are needed. Prochaska
and colleagues studied the business of behavior change for over 2 decades and developed
the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska, 1997). Their work revealed that behavior change
evolves through different stages:

Stage 1–Precontemplation. ( Immigration legislation
that failed ) Individuals ( elected officials ) in this stage do not believe they have a
problem and have often constructed defenses that aid in denial of the problem.

Stage 2—
Contemplation. Individuals ( citizens – defending the border ) acknowledge having a
problem and begin to deliberately increase awareness and knowledge related to the
problem.

Stage 3—Preparation. ( Primary run off elections ) Before ( delayed process )
initiating behavior change, individuals should reevaluate themselves ( polling elect
ability )with respect to the ( border and drug trade ) problem, develop commitment to
change, and construct a detailed plan for change ( Primary selection is over ). By the time
they reach this stage, individuals ( Political candidates ) begin to perceive greater benefits
than barriers to change.

Stage 4–Action. Behavior change is initiated ( Border minute
man ). Others are likely to recognize a person’s progress toward change( the historic
minute man deployed again ) . After at least 6 months in the action stage, the person may
move into the fifth stage.

Stage 5–Maintenance. Though change is maintained more easily now, some vigilance is still required to avoid slips or setbacks ( border violence for
control of property and humanity rights for the exchange of commerce – people and
drugs ). If and when the change becomes so automatic that there is no possibility of
reverting to a former behavior ( the devaluation of citizenship ), the goal –
“Termination”—is reached ( 2009-new administration and congress ) (Prochaska, 1997)
that will define the possibilities of these following choices.

This definition of choices used in Viet Nam was the “DMZ, the demilitarized zone”.
But in today’s real time could the new definition between both borders be called the
“NMZ, neo materialized zone, for a citizen or a volunteer, a national militarized zone?”
Neither or both? Is it time for a new American foreign legion or is the minute man of
today our new foreign legion that operates without government intervention that protects
and serves as a historical volunteer citizen law enforcement and military option against
foreign invaders on our borders?

Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C. A., & Evers, K. E. (1997). The transtheoretical model and
stages of change. Retrieved on June 12, 2008 from http://ericae.net/edo/ed429053.htm

June 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm