52 civilians killed in drug cartel attack at a Mexican casino - Polidicks

Though usually I oppose America sticking their noses into other countries matters, I think the US should do something about this, and guessing they likely already are they should try harder. Mexico is too close and this is too big of a catastrophe to ignore. Plus a lot of the drugs are going to the US as well.

[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;32013471]Though usually I oppose America sticking their noses into other countries matters, I think the US should do something about this, and guessing they likely already are they should try harder. Mexico is too close and this is too big of a catastrophe to ignore. Plus a lot of the drugs are going to the US as well.[/QUOTE] And some drugs actually fund terrorist organizations, meaning it's a problem for the U.S too.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];31998615']You don't talk about how horrible and evil the Treaty of Versai was, you reffer to the Nazis.[/QUOTE] Uh, wrong. I do both. Which I do here too. Here's the thing, is it easier to stop pouring taxpayer money into preventing victimless crimes and creating crime, or wipe out every single drug cartel? Would it have been easier to write a fair treaty, or fight the bloodiest war in modern history? [editline]29th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32000163]They'll murder anyone selling it legally then, legalizing it doesn't mean they'll just leave all that money and power.[/QUOTE] Yeah like how all those 30s mobsters still attack Budweiser factories.

[QUOTE=Chilean;32014855]Uh, wrong. I do both. Which I do here too. Here's the thing, is it easier to stop pouring taxpayer money into preventing victimless crimes and creating crime, or wipe out every single drug cartel? Would it have been easier to write a fair treaty, or fight the bloodiest war in modern history?[/QUOTE] Should we legalise drunk driving, if there is no victim resulting from it? The victimless crime argument doesn't work.

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32014897']Should we legalise drunk driving, if there is no victim resulting from it? The victimless crime argument doesn't work.[/QUOTE] drunk driving is not a victimless crime, a lot of people accidentally kill people while driving drunk this is insensitive and tactless on your part, some of us may have had relatives who died at the hands of drunk drivers

[QUOTE='[sluggo];32014897']Should we legalise drunk driving, if there is no victim resulting from it? The victimless crime argument doesn't work.[/QUOTE] Well I don't see any drug cartels profiting off of drunk driving. :eng101: Besides, the "drugs endanger other people" argument is what led to prohibition in the first place. Some people getting beat, or some people still getting beat also violent crime everywhere. Pick your poison.

[QUOTE=TropicalV2;32014954]drunk driving is not a victimless crime, a lot of people accidentally kill people while driving drunk this is insensitive and tactless on your part, some of us may have had relatives who died at the hands of drunk drivers[/QUOTE] Key part of my statement: "[b]if[/b] there is no victim resulting from it" What I was saying, was, that if there is no victim in that peticular incident, that argument would exuse it. No offence intended.

[QUOTE=ForgotPassword;32002355]I remember a captain of a police force i think (in a drug cartel bust article from a while ago)said something along the lines of "We aren't here to judge these people, let God sort them out. We're here to make sure we promote that encounter." We need people like that down there.[/QUOTE] "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I still think about an idea that I had. Make a huge game-show, close off a chunk of land, and have cartels enter in the competition. All of their members fight it out against 3 other teams in a 50x50 kilometer arena. The last men standing are crowned champion. And executed on live TV. As horrible as it is, it ain't as bad as innocents getting chopped up.

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;32000163]They'll murder anyone selling it legally then, legalizing it doesn't mean they'll just leave all that money and power.[/QUOTE] They'll murder all the sellers in the United States too? How about importers? Why would you buy from a cartel or black market dealer when you can go down to the shop to get your drugs, legally? [QUOTE='[sluggo];31998615']Just because the Treaty of Versai indirectly caused World War 2, does it mean the things hitler did wasn't evil. You don't talk about how horrible and evil the Treaty of Versai was, you reffer to the Nazis. You should blame the culprits, not there motive. [b]Y[/b]ou cannot say these attacks are completely caused by the war on drugs. Did the war on drugs burn these people alive, or did the cartels?[/QUOTE] The cartels burned those people alive because they have massive profits to protect because of the war on drugs. The drug war has never worked and never will work, if there's a market for something people are going to get it - period. The question is, should we allow our governments to protect the monopoly on drugs by the cartels (which is, by the way, what they're doing - granting a monopoly to the cartels) or should we just give up the moral crusade? Black markets pop up through history all the time, eventually they go away because we realize the wars against the product are frivolous and stop banning it. All that is accomplished is creating a black market - that's it, there's no alternative. There is never a scenario where banning a narcotic will end up in addicts being free from their shackles to skip through the meadows and pick flowers. The best we can do is deal with people's addictions and let them have the drugs so long as they are addicted. Will banning alcohol or cigarettes stop people from doing those things? No. Will banning them create a black market full of killers? Absolutely.

Typical day in Mexico. Now seriously, it's a typical day in Mexico.