Mexican drug lords retaliate.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Pete

Legalize Drugs - and then tax them like tabacco products.

A private company can still prohibit drug use if it likes, as some do with drinking and smoking.

The War on Drugs has failed and it's now causing more crime than it's worth.

Just my opinion.

Pete

I would concur on marijuana, but not on cocaine, crack, or meth. There are plenty of functional marijuana users, a few functional cocaine addicts, but I have yet to meet a functional meth or crack head, to me those are what we should be focused on. Legalize dope then tax and regulate the hell out of it, use those taxes to fund the fight against the others.

Just my .02

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Defender968

I would concur on marijuana, but not on cocaine, crack, or meth. There are plenty of functional marijuana users, a few functional cocaine addicts, but I have yet to meet a functional meth or crack head, to me those are what we should be focused on. Legalize dope then tax and regulate the hell out of it, use those taxes to fund the fight against the others.

Just my .02

The problem is enabling/enablers.
Legalize it, let the addicts deal with their own problems.

We will never be able to solve the drug problem in this country until people are allowed to reap what they sow.
People should not be protected from the natural consequences of their actions.

Socialized medicine/socialism in general is the worst type of enabling.
Consequences for substance abusing individuals would be greatly reduced/mitigated.
If the nation goes down this path, we will reap what we have sown.

[Marina]

Originally Posted by wet dog

And what if the US Constitution ceases to protect protect US citizens? LE does not prevent crime, LE reports crime. LE is effective as a deterrent as long as citizens respect the law, criminals tend not too.

And what about the 'wild west'? Civil authority was in the hands of civil citizens. Criminals feared armed citizens much more than US Marshals. A rope and a tall tree was the biggest deterrent of all.

WD

p.s., I am welcoming debate.

WD, thanks for your welcome.

Here's the deal. We have a failed state - a narco state - on our border. It is a threat to national security, a clear and present danger. (Just like the movie!)

We must target and execute operations with the intent of deterring the threat. That will get the attention of transnational narco-terrorists. They will learn to respect the law if it is enforced or they will be annihilated. Eventually they will acquiesce.

We've come a long way since the rough justice of a rope and tall tree for US citizens within the US. Except in extreme cases, the public does not support vigilantes so there is a lack of legitimacy. As imperfectly as it may sometimes be interpreted or enforced, the Constitution still protects due process.

I think LE prevents crime and works over time with the community as an effective deterrent. But in the case of Mexico, the threat requires a national security response.

In the meantime, as others have said, de-criminalize drug use. That is the surest way to decrease the revenue stream to narco kingpins and their illicit networks.

[Box]

I agree that the 'war on drugs' is a failure...

...I also believe however that the war on drugs was never truly fought with any zeal whatsoever. Far too much concern placed on the 'rights' of the criminal, far too much concern placed on social sensitivities, far too much hype placed on programs like JTF-6, not enough effort placed on objectives.

Its become little more than an academic discussion of a problem with no clear solution.

Just my two cents...

Originally Posted by Billy L-bach

I agree that the 'war on drugs' is a failure...

which only makes the deaths of my friends who have died fighting the so-called "war on drugs", even that much more of a pill to swallow. Circa, 1989-1992. I take some pleasure that we put a sting on the bad guys, but it's of little comfort.

[dr. mabuse]

Well, Carlos Hathcock ( yes that Carlos ) gave me the vague impression (!) that the Phoenix Program was effective. But what the hell does he know.

RIP Carl.

To attempt to equate the U.S. in any way with a drug cartel is, um, interesting.

There are plenty of people that don't do drugs or try harder drugs because of possible legal ramifications. Seen and heard this for a long, long, long time.

As for marji smokers that are functional(?), anyone I know, or know of, that is/was a regular/heavy user that is now around my age, has the fuzzy focus of a 4 yo at Disneyland.

Test me on this. Ask them to calculate 33 times 7 in their head, and watch the fun.

I know, someone out there is now going to say they know a rocket scientist that's a heavy pot user that can work dynamics equations in their sleep.

Right

Originally Posted by dr. mabuse

Well, Carlos Hathcock ( yes that Carlos ) gave me the vague impression (!) that the Phoenix Program was effective. But what the hell does he know.

RIP Carl.

To attempt to equate the U.S. in any way with a drug cartel is, um, interesting.

There are plenty of people that don't do drugs or try harder drugs because of possible legal ramifications. Seen and heard this for a long, long, long time.

As for marji smokers that are functional(?), anyone I know, or know of, that is/was a regular/heavy user that is now around my age, has the fuzzy focus of a 4 yo at Disneyland.

Test me on this. Ask them to calculate 33 times 7 in their head, and watch the fun.

I know, someone out there is now going to say they know a rocket scientist that's a heavy pot user that can work dynamics equations in their sleep.

Right

I was in the Cell Tower construction industry for awhile, and I can tell you this...

I'll trust a drunk over a pot head, for one simply reason, a drunk can not fake accute reflexes, while I can not trust a pot head to think rationally.

I had a guy, who occasionally showed up for work, not quite together or ready to work. I simply said, "...clock out, go sleep in the truck". A pot head, you never know what you're getting, espically at 120' above the ground holding my life in his hands.

Power tools, cutting torches, steel structure, cranes hold ton(s) of iron and my soft flesh do not mix well.

WD

[LarryW]

The elephant in the room remains...if you legalize drugs, tax it, use the money to fight the others, etc the violence related to DRUGS will probably go down, but the criminal scum that are killing innocents will remain. IMHO, the murderers of innocent human beings need to be removed from civilization. Period.

[99meters]

Tabacco may kill the user (great put a heavy tax on it). Alcohol may also kill its user. Hovever, many times innocent people go along for the ride....... domestic violence, DWIs. Actually that's not true...most times the drunk idiot lives. Leagalizing drugs would result in the deaths of a lot more "innocent people".

[Sten]

Originally Posted by 99meters

Tabacco may kill the user (great put a heavy tax on it). Alcohol may also kill its user. Hovever, many times innocent people go along for the ride....... domestic violence, DWIs. Actually that's not true...most times the drunk idiot lives. Leagalizing drugs would result in the deaths of a lot more "innocent people".

Drugs and alcohol cause domestic violence like guns cause murder.

[Richard]

Life is like a grapefruit - it is colorful and squishy and has a few pips in it...and some ffolkes have half a one for breakfast.

Richard's jaded $.02

[99meters]

Originally Posted by Sten

Drugs and alcohol cause domestic violence like guns cause murder.

I would guess there is a good reason guns are prohibited in places that serve alcohol. Guns are cool, I like guns. Guns on an unstable person with liquid courage flowing through his blood is not cool.
Hard drugs are not anything like pot, tabacco or alcohol. People who are hooked on these drugs are willing to do things your average drunk or pot-head would not even consider. Heavy taxes would not be a problem for this new legion of crackheads that leagalizing drugs would create. More than likely they would be paying with money belonging to the non-drug users (innocent people).

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Sten

Drugs and alcohol cause domestic violence like guns cause murder.

Yep. The individual make the decision to smoke crack, drink in excess or pull the trigger or throw that punch. You can make all the laws you want and people will still make the decision to locate and consume drugs, alcohol, guns and they will still beat their wives.

It's all about your decisions, personal responsibility and self control. Laws cannot control that, only you can.

Originally Posted by LarryW

The elephant in the room remains...if you legalize drugs, tax it, use the money to fight the others, etc the violence related to DRUGS will probably go down, but the criminal scum that are killing innocents will remain. IMHO, the murderers of innocent human beings need to be removed from civilization. Period.

IMHO....Even with legalized drugs, you would still have the Black Market and folks willing to kill for a market share or a fix.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by 99meters

I would guess there is a good reason guns are prohibited in places that serve alcohol. Guns are cool, I like guns. Guns on an unstable person with liquid courage flowing through his blood is not cool.
Hard drugs are not anything like pot, tabacco or alcohol. People who are hooked on these drugs are willing to do things your average drunk or pot-head would not even consider. Heavy taxes would not be a problem for this new legion of crackheads that leagalizing drugs would create. More than likely they would be paying with money belonging to the non-drug users (innocent people).

Denying people the right to carry in places, based on keeping the lawbreakers from doing likewise, is a bit like locking the barn after the horse is out.

I think restricting the rights of law-abiders in hopes that those who shouldn't drink and carry, won't drink and carry, is a bad trade-off.

There have been cries that changing the laws in many states to allow carry in places that serve alcohol would lead to drunken shootouts by CCW holders (the same argument they used to deny CCWs in the first place). These arguments have not proven to be true.

Please provide me the details of any CCW holders who carried into a place serving alcohol, imbibed, and misused their weapons.

Do we stop drunk driving by banning drivers from businesses that serve alcohol?

TR

[VAKEMP]

The only reason the Mexican drug lords have so much money/power is because Americans are buying their drugs. I think that those inclined to take illegal substances will always find a way to get their hands on what they want. I also wonder how much of the "sexy factor" comes into play with people who think it's exciting to participate in something that is considered taboo. Of course that isn't such a great idea with highly addictive substances, but I doubt that red flag pops up in the head of the average addict.

I live on the Navajo Reservation, and have lived here off and on since '88. Alcohol is illegal here on the 'rez, which I think is a perfect example of "good initiative, bad judgment" in relation to the topic of legalizing drugs. In an effort to prevent the abuse of alcohol on the 'rez, the Navajo Nation does not allow the possession, use or sale of alcohol on its land. A very noble endeavor, but us humans always find a way to get what we want. Some folks simply do their drinking off of the 'rez, and/or (typically and) bring some liquor back with them. The hardcore alcoholics end up becoming "glaanis" (beggars/bums), asking for money outside of shops and using the cash to buy booze (or hairspray if they can't afford the real stuff).

Then there are the bootleggers. One of my friend's dads has a small booklet FULL of contact info for bootleggers, and the info is just for that town! Of course they double/triple the prices for the booze, since they are providing it as a convenience. The nearest towns off the 'rez can be over a 3-hour drive depending on where you live.

There is also the fact that the bootleggers don't care who they sell to. They will sell to anyone, at any age. I remember going with my friends to pick up some Garden Deluxe from a bootlegger when we were in 6th grade. I had to hide in the bushes while they went up to the house, since the presence of a "bilagaana" (anglo) kid would probably make the bootleggers a bit uncomfortable. A few minutes later my friends returned with the booze, and off we went into the desert on our BMX bikes.

I'm not saying legalizing alcohol would prevent abuse on the 'rez. However, it's apparently difficult to address a problem that isn't supposed to exist since it's illegal. How many officials would be willing to approve some sort of alcoholics anonymous type of program when alcohol is illegal? I would much rather have legalized alcohol so there are controls in place to make it harder for minors to get booze, so they can tax it and educate the public on alcohol abuse (maybe throw a little $$ to the schools to improve overall education, too), and of course have one less opportunity for bad people to do bad things.

I understand why people want drugs to remain illegal: they turn people into addicts and ruin lives. I also understand the government's reluctance to legalize drugs, as I doubt it would take long for a parent to sue for "making" their child an addict. But personally I would rather have to deal with one idiot trying to break into my home looking for things to steal so he can get his next fix than a squad of assassins pulling up next to my vehicle with high-caliber weapons because I said hi to one of their ex-girlfriends.