• Obama: Drug legalization not answer to cartels
    140 replies, posted
Legalize the majority of drugs on the market. If people wish to hurt themselves, then whatever. Government funded rehab is going to be a fraction of the price of putting them all in prison. Marijuana can certainly have negative side effects, despite the fervent claims to the opposite, but so can many other drugs that you buy over the counter. Take Ibuprofen for too long and it will give you an ulcer. It Acetaminophen (Paracetamol) too long and it will potentially cause serious liver damage. Alcohol can certainly outpace the damage. No real reason for it not to be legal and treated exactly like alcohol. Now you can bitch and moan about that not solving the problems. Frankly I think it will sufficiently damage the Cartels so that they can be handled by the Mexican military. But if it doesn't, then I am totally for sending the US military into Mexico to aid them in any fashion they desire. The Cartels do well so long as their enemy is weak, but their idealogy isn't iron clad like it is with an actual military force. They are functionally comprised of soldiers of fortune. When shit turns ugly, such as an Abrams tank division appearing at your drug manufacturing facilities and murdering everyone wholesale in a torrent of fire and canister shot coupled with those choosing to flee being pursued by gunships and slaughtered, the cartel is going to fall apart. Their morale will plummet and their power will vanish alongside their numbers. It would, for once, be a legitimate use of our primary branches of armed forces in a police action.
[QUOTE=GunFox;35576050]Legalize the majority of drugs on the market. If people wish to hurt themselves, then whatever. Government funded rehab is going to be a fraction of the price of putting them all in prison. Marijuana can certainly have negative side effects, despite the fervent claims to the opposite, but so can many other drugs that you buy over the counter. Take Ibuprofen for too long and it will give you an ulcer. It Acetaminophen (Paracetamol) too long and it will potentially cause serious liver damage. Alcohol can certainly outpace the damage. No real reason for it not to be legal and treated exactly like alcohol. Now you can bitch and moan about that not solving the problems. Frankly I think it will sufficiently damage the Cartels so that they can be handled by the Mexican military. But if it doesn't, then I am totally for sending the US military into Mexico to aid them in any fashion they desire. The Cartels do well so long as their enemy is weak, but their idealogy isn't iron clad like it is with an actual military force. They are functionally comprised of soldiers of fortune. When shit turns ugly, such as an Abrams tank division appearing at your drug manufacturing facilities and murdering everyone wholesale in a torrent of fire and canister shot coupled with those choosing to flee being pursued by gunships and slaughtered, the cartel is going to fall apart. Their morale will plummet and their power will vanish alongside their numbers. It would, for once, be a legitimate use of our primary branches of armed forces in a police action.[/QUOTE] not to mention the totally unfounded fears of cartel-led terrorism in the wake of legalization that others have brought up I mean, terrorism really only works when the group behind it is backed by a fervent political or religious ideology (Al Qaeda, the Taliban, hamas, Al Shabaab, and so on) that people would be willing to die for obviously, cartel members are in it for the money, not because of some misguided asinine ideology, and like GunFox said, if shit starts hitting the fan, they're going to get the fuck out of dodge
Nobody wants mexican brick weed anyways.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;35577976]Nobody wants mexican brick weed anyways.[/QUOTE] Yea ive never actually understood who buys their weed.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;35577976]Nobody wants mexican brick weed anyways.[/QUOTE] Its quality is shit and for some reason it costs way too much in Georgia compared to the locally grown bud. In fact, I'd say the imported shit to Greece from Turkey is much better quality than that Mexican shit.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;35573055]I can understand banning cigarettes, but why tobacco in general?[/QUOTE] I figured loose tobacco and cigarettes are all part of the same companies.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;35570990]Of course it wouldn't solve the problems. In fact, that argument has been run so far into the ground that those who do support legalization rarely use it. (Unless you're an idiot) The Cartels already have such a strong influence that knocking out one source of income will only strengthen their other endeavors. It may sound radical and I know a lot of you would disagree; but I feel the only way to stop the cartels (At least the Mexico based ones) is by use of special military forces. Mexico's law enforcement isn't going to do the job, and even if they tried it wouldn't even make a dent.[/QUOTE] Wheres your source on this? Those remarks are quite the stretches.
Why governments have rights to ban something natural unless said thing has destruction potential?
[QUOTE=borisvdb;35581941]I figured loose tobacco and cigarettes are all part of the same companies.[/QUOTE] Isn't the reason cigarettes initially became popular because a new strain/variant of tobacco was selectively bred that allowed you to inhale it repeatedly without coughing as much? I think it was. I'd imagine using it recreationally as described below would be safer than using it constantly. [quote=Peter McWilliams - Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do]Cigarettes practically beg for a bad relationship. But then, they were designed that way. For the several centuries prior to the Civil War, tobacco's use was primarily recreational: people would inhale it, choke, get dizzy, fall on the floor, roll around—typical Saturday night recreation. For the most part, people used tobacco (a botanical relative of deadly nightshade, by the way) once or twice a week and that was it. After the Civil War, the South needed a cash crop less labor intensive than cotton. A special strain of tobacco was developed that allowed people to inhale deeply without coughing. This let people smoke almost continuously, if they liked. It also resulted in almost immediate addiction. [/quote]
[QUOTE=borisvdb;35581941]I figured loose tobacco and cigarettes are all part of the same companies.[/QUOTE] So you want to ban cigarettes and tobacco because of the companies that sell it? Wow, thought that through much [editline]15th April 2012[/editline] Like taking apart the company?
[QUOTE=borisvdb;35573020]I somewhat disagree. Cannabis should be legalized as well as psychedelic mushrooms. Cigarettes and tobacco should be illegalized. That's just my two cents.[/QUOTE] So your answer to the legality of cannabis is to ban even more widespread substances. Can't see a flaw with that.
Solution: carpet bomb mexico.
[QUOTE=DaysBefore;35583672]So your answer to the legality of cannabis is to ban even more widespread substances. Can't see a flaw with that.[/QUOTE] I think he's trying to say that if alcohol or cigarettes were invented today they would be illegal.
Drugs should be legalised under a special licence that each user must buy, kinda like a car licence. Then again, it causes alot of social problems. So it should stay banned.
[QUOTE=SilverKnight;35589595]Drugs should be legalised under a special licence that each user must buy, kinda like a car licence. Then again, it causes alot of social problems. So it should stay banned.[/QUOTE] Licences would do literally nothing. I have a learner's driving licence and even then if I wanted to I could step out of the house and get in one of my family's cars without a driving instructor and then drive away, with a probably rather low risk of getting pulled over by the police. Same thing for licences with drugs. What would be the point of a licence anyways? Age validation can be done with most other things, unless it's a mean of government income by exploiting certain drug users while alienating many who wouldn't afford / see the need in the licence.
Wouldn't outright fix the problem, but it would help. Mexico has the potential to be a powerful nation and ally, we just need to help them back on their feet. Plus, if Mexico becomes a decent nation, the amount of illegal immigration will surely decline.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;35589875]Licences would do literally nothing. I have a learner's driving licence and even then if I wanted to I could step out of the house and get in one of my family's cars without a driving instructor and then drive away, with a probably rather low risk of getting pulled over by the police. Same thing for licences with drugs. What would be the point of a licence anyways? Age validation can be done with most other things, unless it's a mean of government income by exploiting certain drug users while alienating many who wouldn't afford / see the need in the licence.[/QUOTE] It's to educate users about the potential risks and dangers of the drug, and, should they use them, to teach them how to properly and in the safest manner use the drug... The goal is to steer people away from more dangerous drugs through education, and to teach people to use drugs wisely and responsibly. Now you might ask, "Why would someone go get a license rather than just doing the drug?" The same reason why most people won't drive without a license, because they risk getting into trouble if caught. Getting a drivers license is about more than just stopping people from driving, it's about making sure that the people who have them, know [i]how[/i] to drive. [QUOTE=SilverKnight;35589595]Drugs should be legalised under a special licence that each user must buy, kinda like a car licence. Then again, it causes alot of social problems. So it should stay banned.[/QUOTE] More social problems are created through the banning of drugs than the drugs themselves, your point is moot.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;35583336]So you want to ban cigarettes and tobacco because of the companies that sell it? Wow, thought that through much [editline]15th April 2012[/editline] Like taking apart the company?[/QUOTE] No, because of it's addictive health effects and direct correlation with cancer. It doesn't help the middle-class that cigarette companies are getting rich off of selling a substance that kills people. [editline]16th April 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=JustExtreme;35582273]Isn't the reason cigarettes initially became popular because a new strain/variant of tobacco was selectively bred that allowed you to inhale it repeatedly without coughing as much? I think it was. I'd imagine using it recreationally as described below would be safer than using it constantly.[/QUOTE] I did not know that actually.
Pleased to be of service then, borisvdb and others who rated me informative :) I'd highly recommend checking out the book I got that from, its got lots of interesting stuff like what I quoted in it along with some convincing lines of thought - Ain't Nobodys Business If You Do by Peter McWilliams, here is a link to a PDF copy I just found [url]http://www.bushforpresidentofiraq.com/aint.pdf[/url]
Obama is talking out of his ass. Nevermind whats good for Americans I guess.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmPnhdpBLU[/media]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.