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: 1149
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 (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: James Deffenbach (#39)
Well according to happy, I should not even be allowed to be a doctor because I am against the WOD. LOL! He's f4um's own little Adolph.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976 Nothing in the State, everything outside the State, everything against the State - Jan Lester, Escape From Leviathan "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it." - Frederic Bastiat Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone. - Zhuangzi
I'm against it too. I'll take 100 Tramadol asap. ahaha.
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. Happy, don't give up yet. From my first hand experience with addicts, methadone clinics and hopeless drunks, if someone could round them all up, dig a giant hole and bury them, I'll buy into that.
Swiss approve pioneering legal heroin program GENEVA — The world's most comprehensive legalized heroin program became permanent Sunday with overwhelming approval from Swiss voters who simultaneously rejected the decriminalization of marijuana. The heroin program, started in 1994, is offered in 23 centers across Switzerland. It has helped eliminate scenes of large groups of drug users shooting up openly in parks that marred Swiss cities in the 1980s and 1990s and is credited with reducing crime and improving the health and daily lives of addicts. The nearly 1,300 selected addicts, who have been unhelped by other therapies, visit one of the centers twice a day to receive the carefully measured dose of heroin produced by a government-approved laboratory. They keep their paraphernalia in cups labeled with their names and use the equipment and clean needles to inject themselves – four at a time – under the supervision of a nurse, and also receive counseling from psychiatrists and social workers. The aim is to help the addicts learn how to function in society. The United States and the U.N. narcotics board have criticized the program as potentially fueling drug abuse, but it has attracted attention from governments as far away as Australia and Canada, which in recent years have started or are considering their own programs modeled on the system. The Netherlands started a smaller program in 2006, and it serves nearly 600 patients. Britain has allowed individual doctors to prescribe heroin since the 1920s, but it has been running trials similar to the Swiss approach in recent years. Belgium, Germany, Spain and Canada have been running trial programs too. Sixty-eight percent of the 2.26 million Swiss voters casting ballots approved making the heroin program permanent. By contrast, around 63.2 percent of voters voted against the marijuana proposal, which was based on a separate citizens' initiative to decriminalize the consumption of marijuana and growing the plant for personal use. Olivier Borer, 35, a musician from the northern town of Solothurn, said he welcomed the outcome in part because state action was required to help heroin addicts, but he said legalizing marijuana was a bad idea. "I think it's very important to help these people, but not to facilitate the using of drugs," Borer said. "You can just see in the Netherlands how it's going. People just go there to smoke." Sabina Geissbuehler-Strupler of the right-wing Swiss People's Party, which led the campaign against the heroin program, said she was disappointed in the vote. "That is only damage limitation," she said. "Ninety-five percent of the addicts are not healed from the addiction." Health insurance pays for the bulk of the program, which costs 26 million Swiss francs ($22 million) a year. All residents in Switzerland, which has a population of 7.5 million, are required to have health insurance, with the government paying insurance premiums for those who cannot afford it. Parliament approved the heroin measure in a revision of Switzerland's narcotics law in March, but conservatives challenged the decision and forced a national referendum under Switzerland's system of direct democracy. Jo Lang, a Green Party member of parliament from the central city of Zug, said he was disappointed in the failure of the marijuana measure because it means 600,000 people in Switzerland will be treated as criminals because they use cannabis. "People have died from alcohol and heroin, but not from cannabis," Lang said. The government, which opposed the marijuana proposal, said it feared that liberalizing cannabis could cause problems with neighboring countries. On a separate issue, 52 percent of voters approved an initiative to eliminate the statute of limitations on pornographic crimes against children before the age of puberty. The current Swiss statute of limitations on prosecuting pedophile pornography is 15 years. The initiative will result in a change in the constitution to remove that time limit.
HEY! Lets goto Needle Park.
"we ought to lay off the criticism" -- Pinguinite, circa 2010-05-26 22:17:22 ET
================================================ I'm still surrounded
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
======================================== I have never and will never give up on MYSELF. If you have ever helped an addict or drunk, then GOD BLESS YOU for doing it! Every one of them I've ever met wished to god they had never seen a joint, needle, or snort line. I know I'm right. Still surrounded though
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
==================================== U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
sorry, but i don't understand that as an answer to my question.
Which one do you plan to get hooked on first once they're legal? Excellent Dak. The most incisive comment on the thread. Exactly, which drug do most people want to get hooked on? The entire point is that, as you point out, most people who do not do drugs, which are very widely and easily available as is, would continue to not use drugs and people who do now, while they are illegal, would continue to do them. The winner is the tax payer who is sick and tired of drug war excesses such as property confiscation, "No Knock" terror raids killing people at the wrong address - like the 92(?) year old lady who got whacked last year. All those wonderful things we've become so accustomed to because some people are afraid that other people will behave stupidly. Who'd a thunk?
"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 have never and will never give up on MYSELF. If you have ever helped an addict or drunk, then GOD BLESS YOU for doing it! Every one of them I've ever met wished to god they had never seen a joint, needle, or snort line. I know I'm right. Still surrounded though I agree with and applaud your humanity. I do not however, agree with your solution of continuing to enable violent drug cartels. And that is basically what you are doing in supporting the "War on some drugs". Anti-Depressants, and you can check this out in the "Physicians Desk Reference", such as Prozac, Effexor, and Paxil have more, and more severe, side effects than Heroin, and they are legal. While I don't reccomend any of them the reality is that the unstaunched flow of drugs, and dirty money, could not exist without government collaboration and connivance. What the "War on Drugs" is, in reality, is a war on the "unapproved" drug gangs. 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.
"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
It's a health issue not a criminal one.
i live in what's been referred to as the meth capital of the world & i don't believe, like happy suggested, that all former dopers agree w/ the drug war. most people know it's a racket. even gop icons gwbush & sarah palin are self admitted dopers! for goodness sakes, what a joke this country is.
"if I have all faith so as to move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." 1 Cor 12:31—13:13 The WOD has been a miserable failure. I also think that legalizing the currently illegal narcotics will not work, either. Drug use and the pursuit of money to buy drugs via burglary/robbing/etc. will skyrocket once they become legal. I've got my hands full on the weekends dealing with TWO dope houses and a corrupt sheriff's department that gives minimal lip service to decent folks who want the dopers put away. These little punks park in the courthouse parking lot on the town square and everybody knows who they are and what they're up to. I've come too close this year to walking up to the little miscreants and putting a 158gr chunk of lead between their horns in front of God and everybody.
__________________________________________________________ That was funny Buck. Good to see you don't fall for the legalizatin of Heroin.
Drug use and the pursuit of money to buy drugs via burglary/robbing/etc. will skyrocket once they become legal. ========================================== Sanity in the Nut House. We're surrounded
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
Thank you! If it wasn't for the profit motive, there would be no drug problem. The ones that buy it will buy it whether it's "illegal" to do so or not. But the ones that sell it care only for the money. 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. I saw a program once where heroin addiction was cured in one hour. I don't remember the specifics other than it's done with one injection. Maybe your husband knows about this? Evidently it's a rather hazardous thing to go through so they do it in hospitals. I'd build those hospitals. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or ============================================= 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.
U.S. Constitution - Article IV, Section 4: NO BORDERS + NO LAWS = NO COUNTRY
They sell at the courthouse? Can you go guerrilla on the sheriff and the punks? All you need is a camcorder and maybe a parabolic mic, and a contact in the media. You'd be handing them the story of a lifetime. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Live free or 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.
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
__________________________________________________________
Comments (81 - 100) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWhat drugs people should take, or not take, is a matter best left between them and their doctor so long as they aren't hurting other people.
#42. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#41)
Well according to happy, I should not even be allowed to be a doctor because I am against the WOD.
Lord Acton
OsamaBinGoldstein posted on 2010-05-25 9:39:59 ET (2 images) Reply Trace
#43. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#34)
#44. To: All (#40)
www.signonsandiego.com/ne...rland-heroin-vote-113008/
#45. To: christine (#44)
#46. To: christine (#40)
Happy, don't you think it's the profit motive that keeps the drug traffick business going? Perhaps decriminalizing drugs might be a solution that would work to lower the abuse rather than increase it.
#47. To: Jethro Tull (#43)
Happy, don't give up yet. From my first hand experience with addicts, methadone clinics and hopeless drunks, if someone could round them all up, dig a giant hole and bury them, I'll buy into that.
#48. To: christine (#40)
Happy, don't you think it's the profit motive that keeps the drug traffick business going?
defeatist
an attitude of accepting, expecting, or being resigned to defeat
#49. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#48)
defeatist an attitude of accepting, expecting, or being resigned to defeat
#50. To: Dakmar, HAPPY2BME-4UM, all (#27)
Legalizing heroin, hashish, marijuana, meth, crank, LSD, and all other addictive, destructive drugs in the US will only ACCELERATE our demise.
#51. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM, christine, Dakmar, Jethro Tull (#47)
Happy, don't give up yet. From my first hand experience with addicts, methadone clinics and hopeless drunks, if someone could round them all up, dig a giant hole and bury them, I'll buy into that.
#52. To: Original_Intent, HAPPY2BME-4UM (#51)
I ran out of smart sounding quotes
#53. To: wudidiz, original_intent, happy2bme-4um (#52)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#54. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)
"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
#55. To: buckeroo (#45)
HEY! Lets goto Needle Park.
#56. To: X-15 (#54)
I also think that legalizing the currently illegal narcotics will not work, either.
#57. To: christine, all (#40)
(Edited)
Happy, don't you think it's the profit motive that keeps the drug traffick business going? Perhaps decriminalizing drugs might be a solution that would work to lower the abuse rather than increase it.
die kill ~~ Me
God is a separatist. That's good enough for me.
#58. To: Original_Intent (#51)
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.
#59. To: X-15 (#54)
These little punks park in the courthouse parking lot on the town square and everybody knows who they are and what they're up to.
die kill ~~ Me
God is a separatist. That's good enough for me.
#60. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#58)
#61. To: Jethro Tull (#60)
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
.
.
.