See other Immigration Articles
Title: MEXICO - Vicente Fox has solution for drug cartels: "LEGALIZE DRUGS"
Source:
Bloomberg
URL Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010- ... on-as-way-to-end-violence.html
Published: Aug 10, 2010
Author: By Jonathan J. Levin and Jens Erik Gould
Post Date: 2010-08-10 11:26:55 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: SB1070
Views: 1301
Comments: 100
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said his country should legalize the production and sale of drugs in order to curb rising cartel-related violence. Legalizing narcotics would curtail funding to organized crime groups, who are using profits from the drug trade to consolidate power, Fox wrote yesterday on his personal website. “Radical prohibition strategies have never worked,” Fox said. “The cost of the fight against organized crime, and in particular narcotics trafficking, has been enormous in our country.” The drug war has killed 28,000 people in Mexico since late 2006, when President Felipe Calderon entered office vowing to take on the cartels, according to data from the government intelligence agency, known as CISEN. That’s keeping tourists away and limiting foreign direct investment, Fox said. Fox said in a July 28 interview with Bloomberg Television that the U.S. as well as Mexico were responsible for the violence. “What is happening is that this huge market of the United States in drug consumption, the largest in the world, is generating the weapons that are sold to Mexican cartels, and is generating the money that is laundered in the United States and brought to Mexico,” Fox said. Arms Trafficking More than 90 percent of weapons used in violent crimes in Mexico are brought in illegally from the U.S., according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. President Barack Obama vowed during a visit to Mexico last year that the U.S. would take more aggressive steps to help the country battle drug cartels by urging the Senate to ratify a decade-old treaty on arms trafficking in Latin America. Calderon, a member of Fox’s National Action Party, said last week that he was open to debate on the legalization issue, even as he said he was personally opposed to the idea because it represented a health risk to society. Legalization measures have worked in other countries, which use new taxes on the products to finance addiction recovery programs, Fox said. In 2009, Mexico decriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs including marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
Mexico Ex-President Fox Calls for Drug Legalization
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-60) not displayed.
.
.
.
#61. To: Jethro Tull (#60)
The discussion has nothing to do with the probability of having it happen. Clearly, it won't. Propaganda does a wonderful job of keeping the herd in line, and the AMA started the clarion call back in the early 20th century in order to preserve their monopoly on drug dispensation. But end of the day, unconstitutional is unconstitutional, even if it means that we have to accept some things people do that we may not like. Personally, I've never, EVER done an illicit drug. Growing up and "coming of age" starting in the late 1970's through the mid 1980's, I had ample offers and opportunity. Didn't seem wise even then. But that doesn't mean that I think that we should allow unconstitutional laws to stand, just because I may happen to disapprove of some types of license in society. Consistency is what I strive for. If people want drugs to be constitutionally illegal then the impetus is on them to pass a constitutional amendment. I'm the same way regarding war (Congress has to declare it, not the President), and other items. If I allow some things to get a wink and nod and pass under the radar then I'm no better than people like Obama and frankly, every bit the destructor that he and his ilk are, just for different reasons.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
====================================================== IT?
Which ones would you legalize? What would be the cutoff age?
12? I see nobody here has a clue on what an opium war can do. HINT: CHINA
This country is lethargic to the point of being brain dead. NEXT: Use
US troops to protect the opium fields of Afghanistan, and make sure to issue
each one world wide a bag a day to smoke, just to keep them alert on the job.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
As far as I'm concerned, a person can lock themselves in their home and get stoned out of their mind 24x7. This was a common way of life in any slum I ever worked in. The problem for me is that these non producers have to be supported by tax payers. Daily heroin, crank, PCP and crack use has a way of making a person useless. Would you agree with me that the legions of people like this shouldn't be a drain on our wallets by way of additional taxes for "services'? If yes, what should we do with these hopelessly addicted who refuse offers to rehab?
I can only assume then that you are against the notion of Constitutional governance and rule of law. Pity. We need more consistent types on our side. If you think violating rule of law and the Constitution is good for some things and not others, you're playing the same game as the neocons/progressives and the rest of the anti-freedom crowd. Your signature line is amusing to me now. Clearly you don't care about the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, so the question of borders is moot. Why bother at all, eh, open them up. It's not like we have a country under your vision, really, lacking a strictly defined and adhered to Constitution.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
This was a common way of life in any slum I ever worked in. ===================================================== If you put your crack pipe down long enough, the truth of what you just (mistakenly) said MIGHT just dawn on your clouded and confused brain.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
========================================= ASSuming has made an A$$ out of you then. Suddenly, enforcing the law in this country has become AGAINST THE LAW!
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
I disagree with nothing that you've said as quoted above. We should let them face the consequences of their choices without the support of public monies. It is only the "social safety net" that allows rampant abuse, because there are no consequences for their actions that they have to live up to. In a consistently constitutional society, they sit in their homes until they cannot function as a member of society. If they venture out to rob, they're shot by the home owner, or the cops, and nobody attends their funeral. There were no legions of gangs and strung out dopers laying around all over the streets before the war on drugs, because before the war on drugs if a man decided to get violent to get money for opium, he quickly found himself staring down the barrel of a Peacemaker. What social support they get would be from churches and charities, all of which in the past (prior to welfare and the leftist state) attached requirements to the charity, like "clean up, sober up, start reading the Bible, or no more food", and they didn't have a policy of "ok, you can keep coming back and taking advantage of us" either. It seems inhumane, in a sense, but its not. Others, not yet trying but curious to try, watch and see what happens. If they see what happens now, today, they see a world without consequences, where the public kitty opens up and supports them on their way to self destruction, and they can claim to be a victim of whatever made up crap modern leftist society tells them is in vogue. If they see what happens in "my world" aka the world prior to the drug war, they see rejection by the community, no support at the public dime, shunning and eventual life in the sewer, or a quick death from a .44 through their skull if they try to rob. In that case, as history demonstrates, most choose the route of "well, seems like a bad idea, I'll stay away".
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
Ad hominem. Invalid argument. If a "law" is unconstitutional and blatantly so, then it needs to be removed from the books. This is standard Federalist/anti-Federalist thought. Have you bothered to read the founding documents of this nation? Just curious.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
FYI: The pursuit of happiness does NOT include slaving a nation into drug addiction.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
I put a question to you earlier in the thread, which you avoided. Cite to me the specific Constitutional authority for the Federal government to enact and enforce the War on Drugs. Go back and read my first post to you, please answer the question(s). Thanks.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
I'd legalize all of them. To keep some of them illegal would only drive the drug dealers to sell those drugs that remain illegal. Illegal = massive profits. And the profits are the reason they sell drugs. And money is the reason our government keeps them illegal. THey have a vested financial interest in keeping this phony WOD going. Look, kid, don't be stupid. What makes you think anyone would go for a 12 y/o doing drugs? I'd use the same age standards that are used for alcohol sales. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or Presumption without evidence. Argument invalid. The same claims were made as to why Prohibition shouldn't be repealed. They fell flat. Your policies have enabled the rise of drug warlords, drug gangs, rampant black markets and perpetual violence. The same things that happened during prohibition. Strange isn't it, you don't see Heineken sending out hit men to gun down Anheuser-Busch delivery trucks today, do you? Ever wonder why? This is of course a sidebar. If you cannot bring yourself to uphold the Constitution in all instances, then you simply do not believe in the rule of law or a Constitutional society. Fact is, you're on the side of every Obama supporter and Bush supporter and FDR supporter. Why bother with the pretense of laws, if you refuse to hold government to the supreme law we laid down for it?
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
====================================== If you believe the Constitution in either letter or spirit for one second even hints at the notion that the legalization of highly addictive drugs is a Constitutional Right then you simply don't get it.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
It seems inhumane, in a sense, but its not. Others, not yet trying but curious to try, watch and see what happens. If they see what happens now, today, they see a world without consequences, where the public kitty opens up and supports them on their way to self destruction, and they can claim to be a victim of whatever made up crap modern leftist society tells them is in vogue. If they see what happens in "my world" aka the world prior to the drug war, they see rejection by the community, no support at the public dime, shunning and eventual life in the sewer, or a quick death from a .44 through their skull if they try to rob. In that case, as history demonstrates, most choose the route of "well, seems like a bad idea, I'll stay away". OK, we agree here. Since these folk all tend to become social resource sponges, if society can take a hands off approach to their many, many needs and wants, I think their slow wasting away & eventual death would actually serve as a deterrent to the lure of drug abuse. (I'm sure you realize we're both off in a theoretical exchange that never will happen)
===================================== I charge that you are an imposter! The legalization of heroin and all the hallucinogenic sister drugs that would go with the legalization of natural opiates is NOT a Constitutional Right! You are as shallow as a dime and worth half that if you believe it is. The lifting of the prohibition of alcoholic is not to be even compared with the lifting of the prohibition of the opium and other sister drugs. I see right through you.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Cite to me the specific Constitutional provisions which grant the Federal government power to enact a war on drugs. Section, clause and sub-clause please. The Constitution doesn't "hint at legalization" because the Constitution forbids the Federal government from making it illegal in the first place. Drugs were plenty legal in 1776, people smoked dope, did peyote, cranked up opium, all without worrying about the Fedgov. Most of them, lacking a welfare state, died young and left no progeny, and society was improved. Your statement thus makes no sense. You are demonstrating that you cannot find Constitutional authority, because frankly, there is none. This is at best a state's rights issue (9th and 10th amendment) and not in the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Sorry.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
Drama much? The Constitution doesn't grant rights, it only acts as an instrument to enable the protection of rights. Have you read the Constitution (I note, you've not answered that question either). Second, the Constitution clearly states that all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government are reserved to the states, or people, respectively. Since there is no explicit or implied provisions for the Federal government to dictate what we can put into our bodies, then laws to the contrary are inconsistent, unconstitutional, and incompatible with the rule of law. It is completely comparable. Remember all the Mob and gangster activity, caused exclusively by Prohibition? Have you read American history? No, I'm afraid not. You see an agenda that makes you blind to everything else. Whomever was harmed by drugs in your family, I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean you get to ignore rule of law and the Constitution. Feelings/emotions are not governing principles and are rather effeminate. Please try to be consistent and come to reason.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
We should let them face the consequences of their choices without the support of public monies. It is only the "social safety net" that allows rampant abuse, because there are no consequences for their actions that they have to live up to. In a consistently constitutional society, they sit in their homes until they cannot function as a member of society. If they venture out to rob, they're shot by the home owner, or the cops, and nobody attends their funeral. There were no legions of gangs and strung out dopers laying around all over the streets before the war on drugs, because before the war on drugs if a man decided to get violent to get money for opium, he quickly found himself staring down the barrel of a Peacemaker. What social support they get would be from churches and charities, all of which in the past (prior to welfare and the leftist state) attached requirements to the charity, like "clean up, sober up, start reading the Bible, or no more food", and they didn't have a policy of "ok, you can keep coming back and taking advantage of us" either. QFT Living in a real Constitutional society requires that one must not be a moron. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or That's how it worked in the past. It's consistent with human nature and human intelligence. I figured we'd agree. Most all of our problems in society today can be laid directly at the door of those who wish to refute the rule of law and live outside the bounds of a Constitutional society. That causes problems, which beget more problems in trying to solve the aforementioned problems, which cause more problems, ad nauseum, to the point that eventually we find ourselves in a society that routinely performs warantless searches carried out by police who are now above the law, shooting innocent people who dare not bow down to them, and if not shot, brought before judges who tell juries that they're not allowed to judge the law itself, and tells defendants that they're not allowed to cite the Constitution as a defense. Meanwhile, an entire spying network of cameras, snitches and informants is created out of whole cloth, who indict countless innocent people. Schools become propaganda factories, kids are taught to spy and snitch on parents, society as a whole devolves to that of Orwell's dystopia. All for naught. All easily solved. But by then, it's too late, and people in toto are lock step in continuing down the path of destruction. Reason becomes pointless, and logic is done away with. No surer way to bring down a society really, than to ignore its founding documents. Clearly. :) At this point in time, there exists no Constitution and no rule of law. Calls to return to such are normally not only ignored, but mocked as backwards and ridiculed as displays of profound stupidity. I'm well aware of the fact that the nation is going to come to flames and radiation long before people realize that they were on the wrong path. It's rather sad. That doesn't mean I don't keep the notion of consistency and rule of law alive though. Got to plant the seeds into the heads of the kids you see, so they learn from our mistakes, if that's possible.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
"That's just crazy talk." -Abraham Lincoln, circa 1865
__________________________________________________________ The sheriff's department only harasses blacks who are doing drugs, they seem to think it's cute and a minor irritant at best when the white trash spirals out of control.
__________________________________________________________ Exactly, and it should be treated as one. I find it sad and unfortunate that anyone would destroy their lives with drugs, alcohol, tranquilizers, anti-depressants etc., .... It is not a solution to life's problems and generally just makes things worse. However, prohibition does not work - it is a cure that is worse than the disease. It spawns crime and corruption, and does nothing to help treat the addict for their addiction.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
But it does keep the CIA money flowing.
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. Exactly.
============================================= I am utterly amazed at the logic the "Legalize Marijuana" advocacy group uses, and even more amazed at the ignorant people who buy into it. Make it legal and the problem will go away. You AT LEAST recognized there "might be" a line drawn for WHICH opiates and hallucinogenics should/could be legalized. America might just as well be stoned out of it's gourd when China and the Mexicans march onto the White House lawn anyway. And like many who are enamored of prohibition as the "only" solution you twist the position of the contrary view. Did I say drug addiction would somehow magically go away? Did I say that current abusers would somehow instantly see the light or that legalization was some sort of panacea? No to all. I did not maintain any of those positions and do not. There are really two main lines of reasoning against the "War on Some Drugs" the pragmatic and the ethical. Pragmatically we can see from experience that prohibition creates crime, and very violent crime at that. The lesson of the "Roaring Twenties" should have stood as a lesson for the ages. Yet we are now embarked upon a similar escapade enacted under same false rationale, and the current Drug Lords make Al Capone look like a Pussy Cat. The best old Al could come up with was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. Rather "retail" compared to the wholesale slaughter now ongoing around our southern border. The false rationale is that Prohibition works and that it is a good thing to create Drug Lords and criminal combines fueled by the dirty money of a filthy trade. You are just as capable as I at looking up and studying the realities, but stated simply the drug trade as it now exists is supported by corrupt government which the individual leeches upon the body politic find sustenance from. The ethical argument is similarly espoused. Upon what basis do the alleged opponents of the "War on some Drugs" support their cause? Ultimately it is a rationale that they have granted themselves the right to dictate behavior, and limit the freedoms, of others. On the surface it is covered over with soothing platitudes such as "we're doing it for their own good and they'll thank us later". Yes, locking up some poor wretch for a term of years for being weak enough to try escaping into drugs will do wonders for their outlook and prospects in life. "We had to destroy the village to save it." In the final analysis the "War on some Drugs" is founded and built upon a house of cards. It's rationales are irrational, its toll in human misery extreme, and even worse after all of the hell it creates it doesn't work. Why you might ask? Because jail is not the cure for problems of the soul, and incarcerating someone for seeking solace from a harsh life in the wrong place does nothing to solve the underlying problem. Drug use is merely a symptom of a greater spiritual malaise, and you don't treat problems of the soul with guns, bullets, beatings, or incarceration. Over, and over, and over again that solution has been used and it ALWAYS fails. It may drive a trade deeper underground, and it may limit the field to only the most violent of criminals, but always it fails, and always the toll exacted upon those whom the prohibitionists claim to wish to help is heavier than had they acted not at all. Frankly I do not see how a caring and compassionate person could support the "War on some drugs". All they are doing is creating a misery worse than was there before their actions.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
But it does keep the CIA money flowing. Righto! It is not sarcastically called the "Cocaine Importation Agency" without reason. Anyone who has honestly studied how the drug trade actually works knows that the drug trade is ultimately run, to no small degree, by people in the highest reaches of our government. The very government the prohibitionists seek to use to enforce the impositions upon others. The sick irony of it is gut wrenching. The Vampire is being set to guard the Blood Bank.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
That was an excellent post.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Thanks. It was from the heart. If I err, I hope to err on the side of compassion for my fellows.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
One side note here since I was involved in this cluster F...it was never a *war* on drugs. Iran has a WOD, China has a WOD, Saudi Arabia has a WOD...you get the point. In those countries dealers, smugglers, etc are dispatched forthwith and the family of the deceased sent the bill for the bullet. If Americans truly fought a WOD it wouldn't look anything like this absurd mess we have.
I know what you mean.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. He (Gordon Duff) also implies that forcibly removing Obama, a Constitution-hating, on-the-down-low, crackhead Communist, is an attack on America, Mom, and apple pie. I swear these military people are worse than useless. Just look around at the condition of the country and tell me if they have fulfilled their oaths to protect the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. One side note here since I was involved in this cluster F...it was never a *war* on drugs. Iran has a WOD, China has a WOD, Saudi Arabia has a WOD...you get the point. In those countries dealers, smugglers, etc are dispatched forthwith and the family of the deceased sent the bill for the bullet. If Americans truly fought a WOD it wouldn't look anything like this absurd mess we have. Which creates a great incentive to not be taken alive, and to kill anyone and every one that poses a threat.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
You're describing a war. Again, America has never fought a WOD. If we did, drug importation & ingestion would be all but eliminated in less than 6-months. Would you rather be a drug dealer in the Chicago or Ankara?
Actually, if the WOD worked in China, they wouldn't still have one. Fact is, if you were a prisoner, you could get drugs in a high security prison (and many do, as well as receiving weapons and prostitutes on occasion). Until we get to the point of "comitment" to ensure that we all live in a high security prison environment, we can't even begin to talk about "solving the drug problem". And that would be a starting point, because as mentioned, you can get drugs in high security prison. The only people who could be trusted to guard such a prison would literally have to be angels and arch-angels, beings totally without sin and corruption who could never, ever be swayed to wrong doing. Otherwise, the problem exists and persists and the prison constructed around us all is little more than window dressing. End of the day, humans are not angles, and can never be.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
Wise man say, once won, remain ever vigilant.
So then, again, the problem is not eliminated. Even with immediate execution, there exists the (rather strong) chance that folks will decide to do drugs. Besides, I doubt anybody here wants to become an even more clamped down police state, all for the purpose of enforcing a fully unconstitutional set of "laws". If we wanted to reduce drug usage to negligible levels, we'd go back to the 1880's model. Which is to day, no WOD, very very few do them on the fringes of society, the rest of us have no crime or overwhelming police state (such as China, and increasingly us, possesses), and druggies are left to rot or reform on their own or with the help of friends, family and church. Between the two unlikely scenarios - become a maximum security prison like China or go back to a libertarian-ish model that worked fine, I'll go with the later.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
I never suggested all desire for drugs would vanish, I did suggest if we were to wage a war, we'd win pronto. Winning a drug war would be evaluated by gaging the amount of product entering the country. I'm guessing it could become a mere trickle rather quickly. For people to call a minimum law enforcement effort a "war on drugs" is to play right into the hands of the government. They want you to ante up your hard earned dough so they can fight a "war" which isn't. The sooner we stop using their phony cliches the better. Have I at least presented a cogent case that our drug effort to date isn't a war on anything? As far as a new round of unconstitutional laws, well, we have no constitution. We're a nation of political polls and presidential dictates. If we did live in a constitutional republic, the American people would take care of the drug problem themselves.
:P It's lively debate and could become even better if we can agree on some basic definitions.
Our "war" to date, is working exactly as intended. It's not meant to stop drugs, and that's not accidental. It's meant to turn us into a police state. It is working swimmingly. Even so, I don't think any "war" on drugs is winnable. To even begin to approach success, one has to emulate a communist police state and turn us into a maximum security prison. That's just not my cup of tea. I totally agree. Yes. No question. For me, it is imperative to keep the push up to restore what was lost, rather than enlarge what we have now. Even though we're headed for collapse, the least we owe our progeny is to pass on why the Republic fell, and how not to follow in those steps. It's that old American spirit streak that I grew up with.
"The more artificial taboos and restrictions there are in the world, the more the people are impoverished.... The more that laws and regulations are given prominence, the more thieves and robbers there will be." - Lao Tzu, 6th century BC
Tip 'o the hat to Scott Horton. I'm pretty sure he pointed this out on one of his radio shows. He's now on Liberty Radio Network weekdays.
Democrats don't mind war as long as they can have big government. Republicans don't mind big government as long as they can have war.
Happy, I suggest that those who advocate for drug legalization begin to take Powerball tickets on a weekly basis. Their chances of hitting the jackpot is far better than is a change in our drug policy. This argument comes up during most election cycles and the Libertarian Party routinely registers less than 1% of the vote. When the advocates can move that number significantly North, they'll be taken seriously.
#62. To: PSUSA (#57)
(Edited)
If it were up to me, I'd legalize it, and tax
it, and put that money where no one could even touch it unless
they were providing rehab.
#63. To: SonOfLiberty (#61)
#64. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#62)
#65. To: Jethro Tull, SonOfLiberty (#63)
As far as I'm concerned, a person can lock themselves in their home and get stoned out of their mind 24x7.
#66. To: SonOfLiberty (#64)
I can only assume then that you are against the notion of Constitutional governance and rule of law. Pity.
#67. To: Jethro Tull (#63)
As far as I'm concerned, a person can lock themselves in their home and get stoned out of their mind 24x7. This was a common way of life in any slum I ever worked in. The problem for me is that these non producers have to be supported by tax payers. Daily heroin, crank, PCP and crack use has a way of making a person useless. Would you agree with me that the legions of people like this shouldn't be a drain on our wallets by way of additional taxes for "services'?
If yes, what should we do with these hopelessly addicted who refuse offers to rehab?
#68. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#66)
(Edited)
ASSuming has made an A$$ out of you then.
Suddenly, enforcing the law in this country has become AGAINST THE LAW!
#69. To: SonOfLiberty (#68)
#70. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#65)
#71. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#62)
Which ones would you legalize? What would be the cutoff age? 12?
die kill ~~ Me
God is a separatist. That's good enough for me.
#72. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#69)
FYI: The pursuit of happiness does NOT include slaving a nation into drug addiction.
#73. To: SonOfLiberty (#70)
Cite to me the specific Constitutional authority for the Federal government to enact and enforce the War on Drugs. Go back and read my first post to you, please answer the question(s). Thanks.
#74. To: SonOfLiberty (#67)
(Edited)
We should let them face the consequences of their choices without the support of public monies. It is only the "social safety net" that allows rampant abuse, because there are no consequences for their actions that they have to live up to. In a consistently constitutional society, they sit in their homes until they cannot function as a member of society. If they venture out to rob, they're shot by the home owner, or the cops, and nobody attends their funeral. There were no legions of gangs and strung out dopers laying around all over the streets before the war on drugs, because before the war on drugs if a man decided to get violent to get money for opium, he quickly found himself staring down the barrel of a Peacemaker. What social support they get would be from churches and charities, all of which in the past (prior to welfare and the leftist state) attached requirements to the charity, like "clean up, sober up, start reading the Bible, or no more food", and they didn't have a policy of "ok, you can keep coming back and taking advantage of us" either.
#75. To: SonOfLiberty (#72)
The same claims were made as to why Prohibition shouldn't be repealed.
#76. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#73)
If you believe the Constitution in either letter or spirit for one second even hints at the notion that the legalization of highly addictive drugs is a Constitutional Right then you simply don't get it.
#77. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#75)
I charge that you are an imposter!
The legalization of heroin and all the hallucinogenic sister drugs that would go with the legalization of natural opiates is NOT a Constitutional Right!
The lifting of the prohibition of alcoholic is not to be even compared with the lifting of the prohibition of the opium and other sister drugs.
I see right through you.
#78. To: SonOfLiberty (#67)
If yes, what should we do with these hopelessly addicted who refuse offers to rehab?
die kill ~~ Me
God is a separatist. That's good enough for me.
#79. To: Jethro Tull (#74)
OK, we agree here. Since these folk all tend to become social resource sponges, if society can take a hands off approach to their many, many needs and wants, I think their slow wasting away & eventual death would actually serve as a deterrent to the lure of drug abuse.
I'm sure you realize we're both off in a theoretical exchange that never will happen
#80. To: SonOfLiberty (#76)
This is at best a state's rights issue (9th and 10th amendment) and not in the jurisdiction of the Federal government.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#81. To: PSUSA (#59)
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?"
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#82. To: wudidiz, HAPPY2BME-4UM, Artisan (#52)
It's a health issue not a criminal one.
#83. To: Original_Intent, wudidiz, HAPPY2BME-4UM, Artisan (#82)
However, prohibition does not work - it is a cure that is worse than the disease.
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
#84. To: farmfriend, Original_Intent, HAPPY2BME-4UM, Artisan (#83)
I ran out of smart sounding quotes
#85. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM, Artisan, wudidiz, christine, Jethro Tull, all (#58)
If you would take the time to inform yourself about reality instead allowing your emotional revulsion at the horrors of drug addiction blind you, you might begin to understand that the most humane and effective solution to drug addiction is not criminalize but treat.
#86. To: farmfriend, wudidiz, HAPPY2BME-4UM, Artisan (#83)
However, prohibition does not work - it is a cure that is worse than the disease.
#87. To: Original_Intent (#85)
In the final analysis the "War on some Drugs" is founded and built upon a house of cards. It's rationales are irrational, its toll in human misery extreme, and even worse after all of the hell it creates it doesn't work. Why you might ask? Because jail is not the cure for problems of the soul, and incarcerating someone for seeking solace from a harsh life in the wrong place does nothing to solve the underlying problem. Drug use is merely a symptom of a greater spiritual malaise, and you don't treat problems of the soul with guns, bullets, beatings, or incarceration. Over, and over, and over again that solution has been used and it ALWAYS fails. It may drive a trade deeper underground, and it may limit the field to only the most violent of criminals, but always it fails, and always the toll exacted upon those whom the prohibitionists claim to wish to help is heavier than had they acted not at all. Frankly I do not see how a caring and compassionate person could support the "War on some drugs". All they are doing is creating a misery worse than was there before their actions.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#88. To: James Deffenbach (#87)
#89. To: All (#87)
(Edited)
In the final analysis the "War on some Drugs" is founded and built upon a house of cards
#90. To: Original_Intent (#88)
If I err, I hope to err on the side of compassion for my fellows.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#91. To: Jethro Tull (#89)
In the final analysis the "War on some Drugs" is founded and built upon a house of cards
#92. To: Original_Intent (#91)
Which creates a great incentive to not be taken alive, and to kill anyone and every one that poses a threat.
#93. To: Jethro Tull (#92)
You're describing a war. Again, America has never fought a WOD. If we did, drug importation & ingestion would be all but eliminated in less than 6-months. Would you rather be a drug dealer in the Chicago or Ankara?
#94. To: SonOfLiberty (#93)
Actually, if the WOD worked in China, they wouldn't still have one.
#95. To: Jethro Tull (#94)
#96. To: Jethro Tull, SonOfLiberty, all (#94)
#97. To: SonOfLiberty (#95)
So then, again, the problem is not eliminated. Even with immediate execution, there exists the (rather strong) chance that folks will decide to do drugs. Besides, I doubt anybody here wants to become an even more clamped down police state, all for the purpose of enforcing a fully unconstitutional set of "laws".
#98. To: Original_Intent (#96)
(Edited)
#99. To: Jethro Tull (#97)
hey want you to ante up your hard earned dough so they can fight a "war" which isn't.
Have I at least presented a cogent case that our drug effort to date isn't a war on anything?
As far as a new round of unconstitutional laws, well, we have no constitution. We're a nation of political polls and presidential dictates.
#100. To: christine (#36)
great tag!
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest