"The War" on drugs will never be won until someone grows a pair and start taking graft, corruption and bribes as treason and punish it as such. Look up definition of treason. "They" are saying it is a declared war, at least that is how "they" make it sound.
There is corruption on both sides of the border. It's just not the criminals ,that are getting wealthy. We, the working lower middle class, are the chumps.
Right now lets face it, there isn't any real consequences to using drugs. So you want to become a meth head, or a heroine addict? No problem, its out on the streets. Oxycoton(sp)?Sure thing, thats legal even. You may get caught, and sent to jail, big deal. 3 hots and a cot, they are good to go. When out, theres different social programs to support the non-working deadbeat, why bother to work? Problem starts to grow when the drug users who want to make it a lifestyle cant afford their drugs, and start to steal from us working folks, or try to rob us to pay for it. Then it affects everyone. Solution is several steps, beginning with elimination of entitlement programs. If they cant get a job, there is plenty of trash or sidewalks to sweep. If they dont do that, let them starve, Darwin's law. If convicted of a crime in a violent nature, and they were on drugs, capital punishment, get rid of the scum. Otherwise revoke citizenship and deport them. Even if they were born here. No one else wants them? Thats no longer our problem, let them swim. It stops being fun doing drugs when mommy and daddy are no longer feeding them, or handing out money, and they starve to death.
As to people trying meth because they are dumb-
I agree, people are dumb, as evidence, I was a dumb DUMB kid. The one thing I can say for sure, I tried a couple drugs, (nothing too hard, not that dumb) for the most part, because drugs were a hell of a lot easier for a kid to get than booze. We could round up whatever drug we wanted, in under an hour. Booze, that one would require stealing from your mom and dad. If you have a teenage kid, I am sure they will confirm this assessment, excluding nerds and straight edge kids, no one talks to them.
If things are in a store, and you don't get to buy as much as you want, and then you get crack downs on growers and producers, I bet we see more controls on use, even with it legal. You can make meth in a 2L soda bottle in your house in a couple of hours. Shrooms, you have jars? Seriously, it is too easy to produce to stop with prohibition, ignore the border, they just make it cheaper and want in on the money. If they weren't packing it in, we would be producing it. It makes back country stills look like rocket science.
I think we would be better served if it was legal, monitored, and taxed. Use the revenue to keep people out of jails and create some more effective treatment options. I am sure it would be much cheaper than the system we have now. And if Coca-Cola or Philp-Moris had a cut in the profits, you could be sure the cartels in Mexico don't have a chance. They may play dirty, but you can't beat American business when the rules are relaxed.
No need to shoot meth addicts either, that's a self solving situation, they have it covered.
At some point, you have to accept that humans are responsible for their own actions.
Are hard drugs destructive to you if you abuse them? Are some drugs just plain bad for you? Sure.
Not my business, and I am kinda pissed off that I get taxed every quarter to pay for policing other peoples' business.
I mean, the argument that some people will abuse drugs and then produce "horror stories" that the paleocons will use to get them outlawed could be used for alcohol as well. I think its not controversial to say that alcohol is at least as destructive on a per-numbers basis (drunk driving, alcoholics, etc) as any other "hard" drug. Hey, let's bring back alcohol prohibition! It worked so well the first time!
At some point the paleocons have to accept that prohibition was a failure because telling people what they can and cannot put in their bodies isn't the state's business and trying to do so isn't just impractical, but immoral.
I don't really wonder why conservatives have failed for years to do significant rollbacks on the welfare state; they don't have any fundamental disagreement with it, they just want to tweak it. After all, if its the state's responsibility to make sure you don't ingest bad things for you, why isn't it the state's responsibility to support you with welfare, give you free healthcare and ensure all the foods you are allowed to eat are healthy?
Big brother is there to protect you from yourself, and if the people can't be trusted to not shoot themselves up with meth then how on earth can they be trusted to eat right, save money for unemployment or choose a good healthcare plan?
Pancho, all very good points. In fact, that's the truth right there about everything. Why is it the gov's business to protect us from ourselves? Wanna ride your motorcycle without a helmet? Ok, but if you crash it's your own fault. That's one of those laws that Colorado hasn't enacted... yet.. but it goes along the same lines. I wouldn't approve of a blanket legalization of all drugs, but some of the lesser harmful ones would probably become acceptable (from research and watching NatGeo: Marijuana, MDMA, LSD and mushrooms are near the bottom of the danger list- if done with reason and moderation). But like anything, cigarettes, alcohol, even scrip drugs, you abuse, you can die.
Now, to slide back on track a bit, I saw a documentary about the situation at the border, and they showed the civilian populous who sits down there and watches the border. They spot several armed men crossing into the US and right there I think it's an armed invasion of sovereign US territory by armed aggressors, how are we not at war? I say give the patriots down there permission to engage hostiles, no just sit back and call Border Patrol who will take who knows how long...
Read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Drug-Addiction.../dp/1888118091
Seriously. Available for less than 3 bucks. Pretty interesting insight.
OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
If I cross into mexico with a pistol or rifle that means the US is invading Mexico? Sweet. brb starting an international incident.
Sorry guess I should have clarified- they stated that in 4 instances in one month US Border Patrol agents apprehended 3-17 armed Mexican Army soldiers illegally crossing the border either escorting drug mules or immigrants. While I was stationed in Northern NY they told us that the Canadian Gov't prohibited US Military personnel from crossing the border with: Arms, weapons of any kind, US Military uniforms and US Military issue equipment. When armed soldiers from a foreign military illegally cross into another country it is considered a hostile action on behalf of that military- under orders or not. Since they are paid soldiers from the Mexican army the US Department of State should notify the Mexican Gov't and there should be some public outcry. How would Canada feel if our troops started crossing into their country armed without permission?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pancho Villa
Oh, to that: 100% agree. Its technically an act of war - tho I am fairly sure it would never get to that when push came to shove.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
The problem from the Mexican side of things is that they have about as much control over the border as the Pakis have over their's, ie, none really. Legalizing drugs would be a good first strike against the orgs that do the most damage in that sense. Yes, hard drugs too. They are nasty things but prohibiting them only puts money into the pockets of extremely evil men.
Prohibition doesn't work and its a violation of the rights of Americans to boot. Yes, if you want to go shooting up speed every night, you're an idiot and you have a problem. However, making it illegal doesn't solve the actual cause, ie, the idiot sitting there willing to shoot up speed every night, and involves channeling money from legitimate businesses whose motivation is to make a buck and whose methods are free market competition into the hands of cartel bosses whose motivation is power over defenseless peoples and whose methods are murder.
There's really no upside to it.
Cost so far this year on war on drugs: $24.25B (that's BILLION with a B)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pancho Villa
Now think of this, the Escobar Cartel in the 1980's spent $30,000 on rubber bands per year just to hold their cash together, and Escobar himself pocketed in excess of $20B from personal profit- that's after paying his men, and other expenses, and you have to figure that's 80's figures, so $20B then is a lot more now. Oh did I mention, that's just ONE cartel, estimates today believe there are over 10 just in NW Mexico alone- within 75mi of the US border.