"instead of so much trade with china and india" hmmm Where have you been? It's allready been done, it's called NAFTA.
"So what are you going to do when confronted by drug lords henchmen".
Consider this; These south american countries have a problem. The law abiding citizens are unarmed. By definition a criminal is one who breaks the law, so the law prohibiting the ability to own and utilize a firearm in defense of self only restricts the ones who actually need it to begin with. So when these maize growers find themselves confronted by illegal types, they either depend on their law enforcement/government to protect them, or they roll over and play dead in fear. They choose the later version because there is no law enforcement agency or government in the world with the ability to protect each and every farmer that country has. Talk and BullSH** about how dangerous a firearm is, and how they need to be controlled are hollow words to the dead. The dead; if they could speak, would likely wish they could have died of natural causes rather than have their head cut off by some drug dealing scumbag for not giving up their daughter or their property.
Therefore, the real issue is the ability of the people to police themselves. As you stated "Remember history or it will repeat itself". Well it already is. The media spins it, but I've been on the streets of Mexico, England, Peru, Phillipine Islands and many other countries with tight gun laws, and the street crime is the equal or worse than it is here.
Give every adult Mexican a pistol and the problem will resolve itselve. Thugs are only thugs when they have a weaker victim to prey on.
I just want to say I agree that American drug policy has failed. Both from Democrats and Republicans
the parallels between the modern war on drugs and the era of alcohol prohibition are stunning.
It has always and will always been known that drugs and drug addiction are harmful to individuals and society as a whole. BUT the use and addiction to drugs are a behavioral issue not a criminal one, of course with the obvious caveats of operating machinery etc while intoxicated. By treating drug use as a criminal action we are doing a disservice to drug users who need medical treatment and we are doing a favor to organized gangs that can extract inflated prices for drugs, and resort to violent means to maintain their markets. Also by making narcotics illegal the price becomes artificially inflated which results to addicts resorting to crime to pay for substances that could otherwise be produced very cheaply, (not that that is the best case.)
The FBI was created specifically as a response to gang members and rum runners who were constantly crossing state lines and out gunning and out driving the police. By and large this segment of organized crime (and the costs associated with fighting it) were eliminated by removing the prohibition of alcohol sales. I wouldn't be surprised if similar results where made if other narcotics were decriminalized (but heavily restricted).
The war on drugs has been largely focused on marijuana although repeatedly top health organizations have refuted the claim as a gateway drug and it's overall intoxication and lethality are below that of even legal drugs like alcohol.
http://skeptically.org/recdrugs/id12.htmlAnd while I don't personally condone drug use (I don't even drink)...
Treating it as a criminal issues wastes thousands of police-hours per year who's time could be better spent pursuing legitimate criminal activity. as well as severely reducing our workforce by making felons out of otherwise productive members of society. America has the largest amount of incarcerated citizens per capita of anywhere in the world and it by and large hasn't helped stem either the availability or drug use rates among our citizens. It's time to take a step back and evaluate ways to remedy this situation. It's a sad state of affairs when the land of the free locks up more of it's citizens than Dictatorships and Communist countries.
The situation across the border is bad, if we ended the extremely profitable drug trade by legalizing and lowering the price floor on narcotics and increasing treatment options. there would be no funding for the organizations that are destroying Mexico.
I guarantee that it will be impossible to win the war on drugs by brute force alone. IN china the penalty for opium use was death and hundreds of thousands of people still used it, it's just how human nature works unfortunately.
That was a truly splendid post. :-)
Metarinka,
While I think much of what you said is logical and sound I think we should keep in mind that while America buries its criminals in prisons those totalitarian states of which you compare us buries their criminals in dirt. Sometimes they don't even bury them.
Also, even though comparing drugs to alcohol and prohibition is popular we need to keep in mind that while people are arguing for decriminalization of drugs they are at the same time supporting organizations such as MAD which seeks to criminalize much of the alcohol related activities (their ultimate agenda being much more extreme)including litigation against bartenders and people who throw parties where alcohol is available, (to essentialy backdoor criminalize). So essentially it is being argued to go one way with one issue using the other issue as a buttress while the other issue is itself going the opposite direction. So it isn't as simple as saying see how it works with alcohol this is where we should be with drugs, when those who oppose alcohol argue see what we're doing with drugs this is how it should be with alcohol.
Its like supporting abortion while at the same time prosecuting a drunk driver for two counts of manslaughtrer if he smacks into a pregnant woman.
Each issue taken in isolation has logic. But when the issues are combined when used as analogies the logic breaks down.
js55,
I think that they are not opposed to alcohol use, just high risk use.
hogan,
I would agree with that as far as the rank and file membership. But think the leadership and activists have a much more aggressive and extreme agenda.
Then would the comparison be valid if applied to the will of the majority, as stated?
hogan,
Not really sure what you mean.
But, the will of the majority in a democracy is intended to be moderating influence on extremism. And works fairly well. At least until recently. The problem with Democracies is that with mass media democracies can easily slip into mob mentality. Of which our founding fathers, though not exposed to mass media of course, were very well aware in their wisdom. Thats why Republic, thats why Senate, thats why lifetime appointment to the supreme court.
Political organizations are not generally democracies and are generally run by the most extreme and activist of its membership. In fact, the membership can often disagree with many of the decisions made by the leadership. But guess wins as far as where the money and political support goes.
js55,
What i mean is that you discredit his opinion based on what you think the leadership is thinking. Not based on the policies or majority opinion. An odd argument.
Descrediting opinion characterizes it on a bit too much of a personal level. I was addressing the argument of which obviously and well stated the opinion is based. But when an opinion is lock step in line with the fundamental arguments expressed by the activist leadership (for example using the analogy of alcohol to argue for liberalization of drug laws) I'm not sure how you would seperate the two and counterarguing seems valid to me. At least until the person that argued by the analogy can express some seperation between themselves and everyone else using the same argument.
Besides, I'm not necessarily against some liberalization of drug laws on a case by case basis but then neither would I use the alcohol argument to buttress my point.
For example if I argued that Obama was an idiot because his eyes are too close together, and you noticed some bubba butt crack making the same argument, it would certianly be valid on your part to lump the two of us together in this context until I argued in a manner that distinguished me from bubba.
Hey Bubba Butt crack here, I resemble them remarks.
But seriously all that smells is not chicken flavored.
I too disagree that we should parallel the illegal drug problem in this country to the days of alcohol prohibition.
Marijuana aside, illegal drugs are illegal because they have shown to be harmful to the health of humans and animals. I think it's that simple. Prohibition was more of a morality war, not a health and societal well being issue as was the basis for the drug war in this country.
Although I don't use it, I can't logically classify Marijuana, in my own mind, as a dangerous drug as it does not have to be altered in any way to be consumed for the desired result. Alcohol, heroine, cocaine, methamphetamine, PCP, LSD and all the pharmaceutical drugs are man made with the intent of having psycho-altering effects and were not placed on this planet in the food chain with everything else to keep us alive and comfortable.
That being said, I think Marijuana should be looked at the same as tobacco. Tobacco itself is not near as harmful as the commercial grade stuff sold to us as cigarettes, chew and snuff. In it's pure form, it is quite harmless (in comparison).
The problem I have with looking at this issue as the 1930's era alcohol prohibition is tolerance. Do we want to get into a new era of tolerance where everything you want to do is just fine and dandy, regardless of the effects it has on you or the people around you?
We are a much more intelligent and advanced society than we were in the 30's however, we are starting to throw caution and most importantly, research, out the window in fear of being offensive or intolerant to someone.
How many millions of our citizens have been killed as a direct result of the abuse of alcohol since the abolition of prohibition? How many families ripped apart because of the abuse of alcohol? And in contrast, how many great BBQ's have you gone to or how many good memories do you have of nights out with our buddies as a direct result of alcohol?
The alcohol companies all advertise responsible drinking. It is the consumer that screws that part up. And when you overdose on alcohol, your motor skills and reasoning abilities are decreased. Seldom, alcohol poisoning occurs and the result is death.
The drugs that are on the street nowadays are far more potent and deadly that they were 10, 15 and 20 years ago. While some people do get drunk every time they drink and act stupid, the effects of alcohol cannot be logically compared to that of a methamphetamine or crack cocaine user.
The psychological effects of the hard street drugs are a danger to the user and society and I would find it hard to argue otherwise. The abilities and capabilities of a person under the influence of mind altering drugs are completely unpredictable. Is that what we want? Soccer moms beating the hell out of their kids because they saw horns growing out of their heads or burning the house down while everyone sleeps because the lamp told her to? How about a high school football team on PCP that can feel no pain, never get tired and actually believe that the other team must be killed to win the game? Seriously think about it on a mass scale. Who would stop these people? I have a cop buddy that shot a guy that was on PCP 17 times. The guy still ran a 1/4 mile until he ran out of blood and his muscles would no longer respond. What would our school systems do? Blow every kids head off that got out of line? They cant hold them down. Not all of them. And please dont think that government regulation would keep it out of the hands of kids. We see how well that works with alcohol and tobacco already.
When is enough enough anymore? Why is having an open mind to change or technology now being seen as blanket permission to do whatever you want?
It all comes down to personal responsibility, of course.
Lets say the government legalizes everything. It would be everything once it starts as the lawyers will have a carnival justifying that they are all the same by definition.
There will be a public service add run during dinner 3 times a week that tells you how dangerous drugs are. They will encourage you to tell your kids to use them responsibly and you probably will.
Now that decision is ultimately left up to the child or teenager. The child or teenager who will do anything to be accepted by their peers. How many great decisions did we all make as children and teenagers? How about in our 20's or 30's or 40's? How many times have you thought, if I could just do this all over again with the mind and experience I have now things would have gone a little different, a little better? Will the parents be punished for the child's actions when they are high? They are now. Think about it on a larger scale. Are we going to jail mom and dad when the kid injures or kills someone or themselves? We do now when it is deemed to be a failure to safeguard the child.
We will once again have jails full of people we are mad at instead of people we are afraid of, like we do now with the drug dealers.
Do we need to let our youth in this country figure everything out on their own? Do we need to give them drugs to escape this terrible reality that is their teen years?
Lets say little Johnny only smokes weed from the time he is in junior high until he graduates high school, assuming he makes it that far. No hard drugs, just weed. Remember, just because it's now legal does not mean it is any less effective.
What kind of ambition is Johnny going to have? What kind of employment record will he have? I seriously doubt that he will make it to his summer job on time or stay focused while he is there if he can stop watching the shopping channel and eating Funions and go get a job.
While Marijuana is all natural, have you ever been around someone that has always smoked it? If so, you will see that there is a chemical in weed called "F&*k it".
Everyone I have ever known that is a regular pot smoker has the exact same "F&*k it" attitude toward life. Is that who will be putting the tires on the wife's car or driving the ambulance for your son when he gets run over by the PCP user running from the purple alligator?
When your house catches fire from little Suzy's meth lab, will the firemen be able to stop laughing at something they saw on the cartoon network an hour ago and come put the fire out?
The answer is obviously no. It would be a total breakdown of our society within a few years, if that long. Then we would have martial law to get whats left back in order if there is anything left of our military. Drug use there is phenominal now as it is.
If you want to see the closest glimpse I think we have to a totally tolerant society, watch the movie Idiocracy. Yes, it is a Hollywood movie but it depicts what legalized drug use and corporate control would probably look like if it were allowed to run wild.
If you honestly sit down and think about the effects large scale drug usage will have on our country there is no way you can support it.
Marijuana is still, in my opinion, the same level of a drug as alcohol and should be treated as such. It is no more a gateway drug to cocaine than cigarettes are to smoking pot. Responsible useage can occure and abuse can occure just as easily.
It is the honor and responsibility of parents to raise a child to be an adult. When we lose that, we lose society.
Is this really an issue on drugs or an issue on morality again as with prohibition? Is it simply the government safeguarding its future citizenry?
Lets say we legalize it all. Lets say that raping people is the next high. Are we going to legalize that too? It too could be argued that it makes the user feel good. There has to be a line drawn somewhere doesn't there? There has to be a point where common sense has a voice again in this country.
I hope this is interpreted as dialogue as that is how it was written. I'm not trying to pick fights here or be right, just exploring the issue.
One last thought on the gun control issue. The vast majority of law enforcement and military in this country are conservative gun owning republicans and will refuse to disarm their countrymen. It is a wonderful scare tactic for both sides of the political area however but it will never happen. It would be a blood bath and the government knows it.
Sounds like a good place to try out a Barret BMG .50 cal with a suppressor. Put a custom barrel on it so ballistics won't match to anyone and you're all good, not that they'd even find the rounds after they split a few noggins. They wouldn't hear or see the shot, just feel it for a couple thousandths of a second. ;-) Cops wouldn't care about a few dead drug dealers layin dead out in the desert. They'd just right it off as a drug deal gone bad or a dealer just trimmin some fat.
Forum
