Open Challenge to U.S. & Mexico

[kmitch200]

I agree with sealing the border but why stop there: why not let them go forward into Vietnam ... uhhh .... Iraq ...... oops ..... Afganistan .....  oh blast ..... Mexico and wipe out these cartels once and for all. LOL

That would involve wiping out every mexican, colombian, american, etc., etc., etc., who wants to make a ton of money from iliicit sales.
They are like the Lernaean Hydra, cut off one head and two more grow back.
Do we have enough VX stored to blanket the entire border? That might work.....or we could legalize the drugs, keep the money in our country and the cartels would no longer have a reason to exist.

[tombogan03884]

That would involve wiping out every mexican, colombian, american, etc., etc., etc., who wants to make a ton of money from iliicit sales.
They are like the Lernaean Hydra, cut off one head and two more grow back.
Do we have enough VX stored to blanket the entire border? That might work.....or we could legalize the drugs, keep the money in our country and the cartels would no longer have a reason to exist.

It's a lot easier than that, end the "War on Drugs".
The President who did that would cut crime and half the National debt in one term.

[Solus]

Isn't that a little like the Cops suggesting to rape victims to lay back and make the best of/enjoy it?

Difference is that a drug user is not a victim.  If they choose to do drugs, it is their choice and they face the consequences.

If drugs were legalized, price would fall, quality would become standardized and the government would be making money off the deal, by not needing the Drug Police or all the prison space taken up by drug offenders...50% I've heard, and the revenue drug sales would bring in.

The cartels would be gone, the turf wars would be gone, addicts would not be robbing folks to support their habit anymore than wino's do.

Only downside I can think of is that a lot of folks taking payoffs from supporting the war on drugs would be out a pile of cash....wait, maybe that isn't such a downside after all.

[twyacht]

One aspect is the indigent/broke addicts and legalization. Since they won't have to steal/rob/or burglarize anymore to support their habit,,...Would they be entitled to free drugs? Who would supply them?  Oh I can see the pot/crack/heroin/pill/ meth lines stretching a long way for free drugs for the "poor"...

Gov't providing drugs to it's citizens? Or subsidizing legalized "drug stores"...Kinda like WIC or food stamps?

Sounds great....(sarcasm added)...

[fightingquaker13]

Just like we provide free whiskey today?
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[JC5123]

The cartels would be gone, the turf wars would be gone, addicts would not be robbing folks to support their habit anymore than wino's do.

I have to disagree with you there. A lot of these drugs are very powerful. They can cripple a persons capacity to do even the simplest tasks. Also look at the effects that these drugs have on the human body. Many taking days and sometimes weeks to leave the system completely. I wouldn't want to be working next to someone who I knew was addicted to heroin. Would you? I do agree that the War on Drugs is a scam, and it needs to be gone, but legalizing powerful narcotics for over the counter sale is still a bad idea.

Addicts will still be robbing people to support their habits and the turf wars will still go on. Just look at illegal cigarette trade. And narcotics are going to cost a lot more than cigarettes when the government gets done taxing them. Although I agree that legalization and EXCESSIVE taxation would be a surer way to decrease use than further criminalization.     

[tombogan03884]

I have to disagree with you there. A lot of these drugs are very powerful. They can cripple a persons capacity to do even the simplest tasks. Also look at the effects that these drugs have on the human body. Many taking days and sometimes weeks to leave the system completely. I wouldn't want to be working next to someone who I knew was addicted to heroin. Would you? I do agree that the War on Drugs is a scam, and it needs to be gone, but legalizing powerful narcotics for over the counter sale is still a bad idea.

Addicts will still be robbing people to support their habits and the turf wars will still go on. Just look at illegal cigarette trade. And narcotics are going to cost a lot more than cigarettes when the government gets done taxing them. Although I agree that legalization and EXCESSIVE taxation would be a surer way to decrease use than further criminalization.     

You mean lik booze and tobacco, both of which are more addictive than heroin. ?
Here's 2 reasons to end the war on drugs,
No knock searches in which cops have killed innocent citizens in every single state.
Asset forfeiture laws, that allow the confiscation of property from citizens with out conviction for a crime.

"But it's for the children"
My ass.

[Solus]

I have to disagree with you there. A lot of these drugs are very powerful. They can cripple a persons capacity to do even the simplest tasks. Also look at the effects that these drugs have on the human body. Many taking days and sometimes weeks to leave the system completely. I wouldn't want to be working next to someone who I knew was addicted to heroin. Would you? I do agree that the War on Drugs is a scam, and it needs to be gone, but legalizing powerful narcotics for over the counter sale is still a bad idea.

Addicts will still be robbing people to support their habits and the turf wars will still go on. Just look at illegal cigarette trade. And narcotics are going to cost a lot more than cigarettes when the government gets done taxing them. Although I agree that legalization and EXCESSIVE taxation would be a surer way to decrease use than further criminalization.    

Keeping drugs illegal will work just as well as keeping booze illegal was working.

And if you keep it illegal you will still have black markets and their suppliers and Law Enforcement working to stop the flow...nothing will be changed.  Or we can just have the laws making them illegal and don't prosecute anyone for manufacturing/selling/using drugs.

I bet you wouldn't like working next to a drunk either...and industry manages to get them out of the work place if they show up impaired.  

If you want to spend money on the "drug problem", make them available to someone who is willing to see a Dr. for counseling and treatment/rehabilitation.  

And this can be done at the local level without the feds being involved.

I notice you think that addicts will still need to rob and mug to get drug money because the government will tax it.  Well, seems the problem is not with the addict but the government.  Stop them from trying to legislate what someone wants to put in their mouth and get taxes back to where they should be...very minimal.

[JC5123]

Tom, Solus,

I can't argue your points. I know that you are both right. I have just seen the effects of hardcore drug use close up. (Cousin)
People get so messed up on things like meth and coke that I can't see the benefit of legalizing them. I say that addicts will still rob and commit crimes to procure drugs because they wouldn't be able to get, or hold a job. The drugs would just have them too messed up. So I think they would turn back to crime in order to get their fix.

Look at Amsterdam, where stuff like this is legal. The most thriving industry there is prostitution. It's because so many people are tripped out that they can't do anything constructive.

I am with you 100% on the fact that the drug police are way out of control and need to be disbanded. Along with the BATFE. These agencies are a joke. They have way too much power, and no oversight.

[fightingquaker13]

Here is your problem JC. You and TW have fallen for the drug warriors sleight of hand.
The illusion goes like this, they start with the problems caused by drugs, and these are very real. They talk about addiction, broken homes, health issues, stealing to support a habit and the like. No one is denying all that is real.
But then, and here is the sleight of hand, while your eyes are on the poor addict (who they want to put in jail on your dime), they start talking about gangs and murder and corruption and evil drug dealers and the like.
Here is the lie, they want you to conflate the evils of drug use with the evils of a black market. News flash, there is an inverse relationship between the two. Legalize drugs and all the evils of the black market go away, and the evils of drugs are mitigated, though not eliminated, through regulation and people opting for "softer" drugs like pot and coke as opposed to crack and heroin. Or go with prohibition and get all the evils of a black market plus the evils of drugs AND, you increase those evils by a lack of regulation and an incentive to create ever more potent drugs. Think I'm lying? Go to a college football game. Most college kids drink beer or wine coolers. At football games they drink whiskey and vodka as its easier to smuggle into the stadium than a six pack.

You said it yourself when you referred to the violence in the ILLEGAL cigarette trade. Operative word here being illegal. If the state creates a black market through prohibition or punitive taxation  violence follows like night follows day.
FQ13