Drug Lord thanks the American War on Drugs

[Genx87]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...forbes.list/index.html

What a fine accomplishment on our part. Maybe if we pass another gun law it will slow this guy down.

 

[RichardE]

Two things will stop the drug trade.

Education and a increase in fulfillment of life so that they are no longer needed.

Making them legal.

Number one is full of issues, number two at least brings government control and regulation into the equation.

 

[TallBill]

At some point it's definitely way more about power then making more money. Hope he pays his men well, because they get power hungry too.

 

[alchemize]

Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

I dont understand why somebody cant outline a plan of action to legalize and make the case that what we are doing flat out fails. It is amazing how many people once you explain the situation admit the drug war has been pointless. But I dont think politicians want to end it because it is a great faux cause they can run on. I am tough on crime by implementing laws that create billionaires who then pay people who commit crimes.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

I dont understand why somebody cant outline a plan of action to legalize and make the case that what we are doing flat out fails. It is amazing how many people once you explain the situation admit the drug war has been pointless. But I dont think politicians want to end it because it is a great faux cause they can run on. I am tough on crime by implementing laws that create billionaires who then pay people who commit crimes.

Truth x10000, and it's about time this became a conservative value issue.

Legalizing drugs and controlling their distribution cheaply would have numerous benefits that would reverberate throughout the country. The organized crime element would lose billions, leaving there no point to robbing and killing for drug money and the associated back-and-forth element. It would also free up tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in expenditure at the local, state, and federal levels, by not having to put drug offenders through the court system and incarceration and probation systems. Given that a lot of individuals who are arrested and incarcerated for drug offenses were people that had jobs, although probably mainly in the service or other low-income levels, those people were paying taxes, buying goods, and not being a burden on the prison and court system, costing huge amounts of $$$ to clothe, feed, provide medical care for, electricity, and so on through the bureaucracy that exists as a parasite on American productivity.

It's time for a change, people should be free to do pretty much whatever they want to themselves, in their own homes or whatever, so long as it doesn't step on anyone else's freedom.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

I dont understand why somebody cant outline a plan of action to legalize and make the case that what we are doing flat out fails. It is amazing how many people once you explain the situation admit the drug war has been pointless. But I dont think politicians want to end it because it is a great faux cause they can run on. I am tough on crime by implementing laws that create billionaires who then pay people who commit crimes.

I agree but think you describe it a little backward though it amounts to the same thing. I think the real issue is not allowing yourself, as a politician, to be painted as weak on crime, to nullify the opportunity of an opponent to run a fear campaign against you.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

He already respects states rights in terms of their marijuana laws... marijuana is basically legal in 13 states now (i posted that thread a week ago)... give him some more time and i'm sure he'll improve the drug laws even further.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Unfortunately there will always be an opponent at election time willing to say "Bob Person voted to give your kids heroin!!! Think of the childrens!!!"

This might be something for Obama to try for in his second term when he won't be running again.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

I dont understand why somebody cant outline a plan of action to legalize and make the case that what we are doing flat out fails. It is amazing how many people once you explain the situation admit the drug war has been pointless. But I dont think politicians want to end it because it is a great faux cause they can run on. I am tough on crime by implementing laws that create billionaires who then pay people who commit crimes.

Truth x10000, and it's about time this became a conservative value issue.

Legalizing drugs and controlling their distribution cheaply would have numerous benefits that would reverberate throughout the country. The organized crime element would lose billions, leaving there no point to robbing and killing for drug money and the associated back-and-forth element. It would also free up tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in expenditure at the local, state, and federal levels, by not having to put drug offenders through the court system and incarceration and probation systems. Given that a lot of individuals who are arrested and incarcerated for drug offenses were people that had jobs, although probably mainly in the service or other low-income levels, those people were paying taxes, buying goods, and not being a burden on the prison and court system, costing huge amounts of $$$ to clothe, feed, provide medical care for, electricity, and so on through the bureaucracy that exists as a parasite on American productivity.

It's time for a change, people should be free to do pretty much whatever they want to themselves, in their own homes or whatever, so long as it doesn't step on anyone else's freedom.

Wait, you think social conservatives are going to make drug legalization their issue? Not a chance IMO. All you need to do is look at the bible belt with dry counties. I don't think any sort of legalization is going to happen unless it's bipartisan.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

I dont understand why somebody cant outline a plan of action to legalize and make the case that what we are doing flat out fails. It is amazing how many people once you explain the situation admit the drug war has been pointless. But I dont think politicians want to end it because it is a great faux cause they can run on. I am tough on crime by implementing laws that create billionaires who then pay people who commit crimes.

Truth x10000, and it's about time this became a conservative value issue.

Legalizing drugs and controlling their distribution cheaply would have numerous benefits that would reverberate throughout the country. The organized crime element would lose billions, leaving there no point to robbing and killing for drug money and the associated back-and-forth element. It would also free up tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in expenditure at the local, state, and federal levels, by not having to put drug offenders through the court system and incarceration and probation systems. Given that a lot of individuals who are arrested and incarcerated for drug offenses were people that had jobs, although probably mainly in the service or other low-income levels, those people were paying taxes, buying goods, and not being a burden on the prison and court system, costing huge amounts of $$$ to clothe, feed, provide medical care for, electricity, and so on through the bureaucracy that exists as a parasite on American productivity.

It's time for a change, people should be free to do pretty much whatever they want to themselves, in their own homes or whatever, so long as it doesn't step on anyone else's freedom.

Or it can legitimize these drug traffickers' businesses. Regardless, legalizing cocaine, meth, and heroine is a fucking horrible idea. The unintended consequences would greatly outweigh the perceived "benefits" of legalizing drugs.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

I dont understand why somebody cant outline a plan of action to legalize and make the case that what we are doing flat out fails. It is amazing how many people once you explain the situation admit the drug war has been pointless. But I dont think politicians want to end it because it is a great faux cause they can run on. I am tough on crime by implementing laws that create billionaires who then pay people who commit crimes.

Truth x10000, and it's about time this became a conservative value issue.

Legalizing drugs and controlling their distribution cheaply would have numerous benefits that would reverberate throughout the country. The organized crime element would lose billions, leaving there no point to robbing and killing for drug money and the associated back-and-forth element. It would also free up tens, perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars in expenditure at the local, state, and federal levels, by not having to put drug offenders through the court system and incarceration and probation systems. Given that a lot of individuals who are arrested and incarcerated for drug offenses were people that had jobs, although probably mainly in the service or other low-income levels, those people were paying taxes, buying goods, and not being a burden on the prison and court system, costing huge amounts of $$$ to clothe, feed, provide medical care for, electricity, and so on through the bureaucracy that exists as a parasite on American productivity.

It's time for a change, people should be free to do pretty much whatever they want to themselves, in their own homes or whatever, so long as it doesn't step on anyone else's freedom.

Or it can legitimize these drug traffickers' businesses. Regardless, legalizing cocaine, meth, and heroine is a fucking horrible idea. The unintended consequences would greatly outweigh the perceived "benefits" of legalizing drugs.

And what would the unintended consequences be?

 

[DukeN]

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...forbes.list/index.html

What a fine accomplishment on our part. Maybe if we pass another gun law it will slow this guy down.

So where exactly does this guy thank the war on drugs? Or perhaps I missed the conclusion that the war on drugs is making this guy rich?

You gun fantasies have nothing to do (or very, very little) with a druglord being extremely wealthy in Mexico.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DukeN

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...forbes.list/index.html

What a fine accomplishment on our part. Maybe if we pass another gun law it will slow this guy down.

So where exactly does this guy thank the war on drugs? Or perhaps I missed the conclusion that the war on drugs is making this guy rich?

You gun fantasies have nothing to do (or very, very little) with a druglord being extremely wealthy in Mexico.

1. Drugs are illegal in the US
2. Sell drugs to the US
3. ????
4. Thank the US for profit.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DukeN

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...forbes.list/index.html

What a fine accomplishment on our part. Maybe if we pass another gun law it will slow this guy down.

So where exactly does this guy thank the war on drugs? Or perhaps I missed the conclusion that the war on drugs is making this guy rich?

You gun fantasies have nothing to do (or very, very little) with a druglord being extremely wealthy in Mexico.

/facepalm

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

He already respects states rights in terms of their marijuana laws... marijuana is basically legal in 13 states now (i posted that thread a week ago)... give him some more time and i'm sure he'll improve the drug laws even further.

I'm pretty sure Obama is a proponent of the war on drugs. I'm not even sure if he supports legalization of marijuana, I thought all he supported was decriminalization.

I'd consider myself to be pretty progressive and even I have some reservations about legalizing narcotics. I still think that the benefits would outweigh the negative consequences, though.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

He already respects states rights in terms of their marijuana laws... marijuana is basically legal in 13 states now (i posted that thread a week ago)... give him some more time and i'm sure he'll improve the drug laws even further.

Actually, no. Only regarding medical marijuana, which by itself, won't solve the problem. It is a good first step though, and I will applaud Obama for keeping the Fed's out of the states regarding this issue.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'm pretty sure Obama is a proponent of the war on drugs.

He is.

I'm not even sure if he supports legalization of marijuana, I thought all he supported was decriminalization.

He even backed away from that. Obama wants to keep marijuana illegal under federal law.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

I dont understand why somebody cant outline a plan of action to legalize and make the case that what we are doing flat out fails. It is amazing how many people once you explain the situation admit the drug war has been pointless. But I dont think politicians want to end it because it is a great faux cause they can run on. I am tough on crime by implementing laws that create billionaires who then pay people who commit crimes.

I think we've laid out a plan, many people have. It doesn't need to be very complicated, I doubt very many would complain if we used the exact same model we currently use for alcohol.

The problem with this particular issue is that honest debate can never occur, because, despite my feelings - i.e. that the majority of Americans view this issue as you and I do, there are well entrenched, well funded, and very loud opposition forces who stifle the debate and normally cite a shitload of strawmen.

The stigma of reefer madness is still alive and well in our society despite considerable research and pushback from the sane among us.

I think this Mexican crime wave might actually scare people enough to realize that we're funding our own destruction.

This morning on Morning Joe - I missed the first part of the segment but the guy they had on was estimating that the cartels actually are pulling in around 75% of their revenue from marijuana. Now that is a shocking statistic, I thought it would be no more than 30-40% based on the price compared to say cocaine, but volume is where it's at.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

I dont understand why somebody cant outline a plan of action to legalize and make the case that what we are doing flat out fails. It is amazing how many people once you explain the situation admit the drug war has been pointless. But I dont think politicians want to end it because it is a great faux cause they can run on. I am tough on crime by implementing laws that create billionaires who then pay people who commit crimes.

I think we've laid out a plan, many people have. It doesn't need to be very complicated, I doubt very many would complain if we used the exact same model we currently use for alcohol.

The problem with this particular issue is that honest debate can never occur, because, despite my feelings - i.e. that the majority of Americans view this issue as you and I do, there are well entrenched, well funded, and very loud opposition forces who stifle the debate and normally cite a shitload of strawmen.

The stigma of reefer madness is still alive and well in our society despite considerable research and pushback from the sane among us.

I think this Mexican crime wave might actually scare people enough to realize that we're funding our own destruction.

This morning on Morning Joe - I missed the first part of the segment but the guy they had on was estimating that the cartels actually are pulling in around 75% of their revenue from marijuana. Now that is a shocking statistic, I thought it would be no more than 30-40% based on the price compared to say cocaine, but volume is where it's at.

Exactly. How many people do you know that smoke pot? Do coke? Volume > Profit margin, ask wal-mart

The (old) Alaska model for pot decriminalization tweaked for MMJ would be the best one imo.

 

[Dragula22]

Decriminalization without legalization is inherently a very dumb idea if you think about it. How can something illegal be decriminalized, and yet remain illegal?

It's basically saying, "we believe what you're doing is wrong but we won't do anything about it."

The gov't needs to regulate the quality and distribution. What decriminalization without legalization would do is take way all risk for these non-tax paying drug dealers.

Again, the gov't needs to regulate. They can control via taxes or other means but it needs to assume control over the situation if we are to see any progress over the issue.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Dragula22
Decriminalization without legalization is inherently a very dumb idea if you think about it. How can something illegal be decriminalized, and yet remain illegal?

It's basically saying, "we believe what you're doing is wrong but we won't do anything about it."

The gov't needs to regulate the quality and distribution. What decriminalization without legalization would do is take way all risk for these non-tax paying drug dealers.

Again, the gov't needs to regulate. They can control via taxes or other means but it needs to assume control over the situation if we are to see any progress over the issue.

The best way would be as follows:

- Trafficking in MJ is illegal. Allows you to go after the organized criminals still.
- Growing and consumption is decriminalized. Ends the need to buy from drug dealers (grow it in your back yard, it's a weed). Public consumption (like alcohol), DUI (like alcohol), giving to minors (like alcohol) all remain illegal. Basically turn it into "home brewed beer", but much easier.

Street value plummets, OC stops trafficking it in, problem reduced dramatically. No debate about taxing it or distributing it or testing it or drug companies la la la, it's a PLANT.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: alchemize
Going to be interesting what Obama & Co. outline for drug policy. How can you possibly represent "change" in this policy with the last 30 years of failed GOP and DEM policy (without looking "soft on crime"). My guess is he goes with status quo with tiny tweaks (i.e. dumping money into rehab/prevention but making no changes to legalization/seizure-forfeit/min mand. sentences), which will then be rigorously defended by our resident partisans

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

I dont understand why somebody cant outline a plan of action to legalize and make the case that what we are doing flat out fails. It is amazing how many people once you explain the situation admit the drug war has been pointless. But I dont think politicians want to end it because it is a great faux cause they can run on. I am tough on crime by implementing laws that create billionaires who then pay people who commit crimes.

Wait a second. What drugs are we talking about legalizing?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: alchemizeNo debate about taxing it or distributing it or testing it or drug companies la la la, it's a PLANT.

So is opium. I'm not entirely opposed to legalizing marijuana on grounds that it's not horribly addictive or destructive, but heroin is something very far from this.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: alchemizeNo debate about taxing it or distributing it or testing it or drug companies la la la, it's a PLANT.

So is opium. I'm not entirely opposed to legalizing marijuana on grounds that it's not horribly addictive or destructive, but heroin is something very far from this.

I'm fine with somebody growing poppies, coca, ergot, mushrooms, salvia, peyote, whatever plants they want to grow in their back yard and consume them as they see fit. It's when they sell it, that's where the problem starts and ends.