• Mexican Cartels massacre 27 farmhands at Guatemalan ranch. 1 farmer survives.
    41 replies, posted
[QUOTE=s0beit;29886695]Interfere? Whoever suggests this is a moron. They have interfered, and guess what, they're relocating to southern Mexico and Columbia to evade authorities. They'll just keep moving to the least militarized area and in the process many people will be killed, innocents and gangsters alike, many civil rights destroyed and so on. You know what would really help? [b]fucking legalizing drugs[/b]. There's a lot of people on here who many not have read about America's prohibition but if you advocate anything other than legalization you are very literally allowing history to repeat itself in a very stupid manner.[/QUOTE] Quite many of those drugs are actually pretty bad shit that would fuck you up, I wouldn't go legalizing them all.
The worst part is that they do this shit knowing government figures and any major law enforcement are basically going to do fuck all.
[QUOTE=SwissArmyKnife;29893806]The worst part is that they do this shit knowing government figures and any major law enforcement are basically going to do fuck all.[/QUOTE] Calderon is actually stepping up on his operations against the Zeta Cartels. The primary reason those cartels are moving south towards the Guatemalan border is because of the operations in Mexico.
Stop the war on drugs, start the war on Mexico. We can knock out cartels and immigration all in one go! [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;29893477]Quite many of those drugs are actually pretty bad shit that would fuck you up, I wouldn't go legalizing them all.[/QUOTE] Funny how studies show otherwise. It's when you start abusing them and don't control yourself that you run into problems.
[QUOTE=Raiskauskone V2;29893477]Quite many of those drugs are actually pretty bad shit that would fuck you up, I wouldn't go legalizing them all.[/QUOTE] Even if you are fully against any and all drug you, there are still way more pros than cons to legalization. The most direct argument in relation to this story would be that drug cartels and drug related violence would stop. The reason why black markets exist is because there is demand for a product, and people can make huge profits off this product, which is obviously why the drug cartels are in existence. Legalize all drugs, the black market is going to disappear because nobody is going to be willing to buy from an illegitimate source when it is far safer (and likely cheaper) to go with a business that has legitimacy. There is no way at all to suggest that legalizing drug use would increase drug use especially when looking at countries who have seen decreases in drug use since legalization/decriminalization. In a lot of ways legalization would prevent many overdoses because people would know what they are getting. With street dealers you can never be too confident in the product which can often lead to overdosing (especially with heroin), so allowing people who are going to use drugs no matter what access to safe drugs leads to far better health. To go further with that, it would be far better to look at drug use as more of a health issue than a criminal issue because drug use is an act that is entirely personal. This is a quick list and I can go far more in depth as to why legalization would be best.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;29875042]Are you crazy? Great Britain did a shitty job treating their colonies. America was born. That's a horrifying analogy.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that until the Treaty of Paris 1763, Britain had pretty much ignored the Colonies and let them do whatever they really wanted to do; hell I'm pretty sure there was also self government. Even after that, the "unreasonable taxes" that were imposed on the colonists were less than that of British citizens. The only reasonable point that I can currently recall that the colonists had was the lack of representation, but the British never treated them badly.
[QUOTE=Valdor;29896504]Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that until the Treaty of Paris 1763, Britain had pretty much ignored the Colonies and let them do whatever they really wanted to do; hell I'm pretty sure there was also self government. Even after that, the "unreasonable taxes" that were imposed on the colonists were less than that of British citizens. The only reasonable point that I can currently recall that the colonists had was the lack of representation, but the British never treated them badly.[/QUOTE] I know of the lack of oversight the crown had on the colonies for a period, but the fact that they suddenly impose taxes on them was basically a back stab move. They had no representation to protest these actions and the sudden surge of taxes on everything pissed off colonists to a high extent.
[QUOTE=Valdor;29896504]Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that until the Treaty of Paris 1763, Britain had pretty much ignored the Colonies and let them do whatever they really wanted to do; hell I'm pretty sure there was also self government. Even after that, the "unreasonable taxes" that were imposed on the colonists were less than that of British citizens. The only reasonable point that I can currently recall that the colonists had was the lack of representation, but the British never treated them badly.[/QUOTE] You are correct in that Britain let the colonies essentially self govern themselves. The revolution was largely economically fueled in that the taxes and regulation being imposed were unfair. Many of the founders understood that Britain really didn't have much of a choice in raising taxes due to the economic circumstances Britain was facing (huge war debt and take over from central bank), but they still needed a strong argument as to why it was wrong to do. The founders knew that taxes were only going to increase and that tolerating the taxes would rob them of any chance of prosperity. This is where the "no taxation without representation" argument came into play because it didn't invalidate the need for Britain to increase taxes to such a point, but it argued against their authority to do so. There are many other factors that came into play into the revolution, such as religious tolerance and infringement of rights, but it was for the most part a revolution against economic policy. Although representation was the main argument for the revolution, the main reason for it was for economic reasons. The colonists had no problems with being taxed fairly which is why the representation issue never came up prior, but when they began to be taxed unfairly and realized that it was only going to get worse, the colonists wanted to opt out of that system.
[QUOTE=Bigby Wolf;29894670]Stop the war on drugs, start the war on Mexico. We can knock out cartels and immigration all in one go! [editline]17th May 2011[/editline] Funny how studies show otherwise. It's when you start abusing them and don't control yourself that you run into problems.[/QUOTE] Really? Try heroine and don't get addicted. It's designed to make you addicted.
I'm glad the US is stepping in. I've always thought that we wouldn't have to complain about illegal immigrants if we just stepped in and made Mexico a better place so they wouldn't need to come here.
[QUOTE=TamTamJam;29900487]Really? Try heroine and don't get addicted. It's designed to make you addicted.[/QUOTE] funny how its still a personal decision.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;29874133]Like I always say. These guys have the same operating capability as Taliban and Al Qaeda and these guys are just south of the border for us while we're throwing soldiers half a world away.[/QUOTE] I thought I was the only one that looked at it this way. Maybe not the same capability, but I'd definitely consider them a threat. [editline]18th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;29874649]Because we're doing so well in the Middle East.[/QUOTE] Actually, if you ask me, we are. Attacks have died down a lot since the War began, and recently we even killed their leader (not that it changes much, if anything it's more symbolic than effective). It's slow, but we're making progress. If anything, our biggest barrier at the moment seems to be the Governments of the countries we're operating in refusing to cooperate.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.