BajaNomad

The Drug War: Victory Unattainable

DENNIS - 4-25-2011 at 06:22 PM

Proceso (Mexico) 4/23/2011


Since 2009 Alfonso Reyes Garcés, Infantry Commander and member of the Army Special Forces in Mexico, has warned that the federal government’s strategy to combat drug trafficking was intended to fail. Not change, he said, the cartel war will never end. And he expanded on the topic in his master’s thesis, presented in December of that year at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. Among its criticisms, the naval officer said that if the drug is a threat to national security, then it must be treated as such. The strategy has not changed and, indeed, the government and its armed forces have no way of claiming that they can achieve victory…

Reluctant to change the strategy that exacerbated the violence in the country, the government of Felipe Calderón is trapped in an “endless war” against drugs, and within less than two years of him of leaving power, he does not even know under what parameters may have a victory. This assessment of what has been the policy of this administration is written by the Commander of infantry and Special Forces member Alfonso Reyes Garcés. He wrote in his master’s thesis that he presented at the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS, for its acronym in English) of Monterey, California, naval training center for U.S.

Currently assigned to the Marine Battalion 27 in the Federal District, Reyes Garcés graduated in December 2009 from the NPS, where he specialized in the Department of Defense Analysis, a division dedicated to the preparation of cadres for future battles, especially on issues of terrorism, insurgency, unconventional warfare and information operations. U.S. and foreign military graduates of this division is now operating in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines and Colombia as part of their training in irregular warfare, in which some U.S. analysts place the “insurgency criminal” who Mexico and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other U.S. officials have characterized as “narcoinsurgencia.”

Calderon’s strategy to combat drug trafficking in the current presidential term, mainly by increasing violence, had negative consequences.
http://www.proceso.com.mx/rv/modHome/detalleExclusiva/90563
______________________

Ken Bondy - 4-25-2011 at 06:33 PM

There is no possibility this will ever end until drugs are legalized and regulated/controlled.

mulegemichael - 4-25-2011 at 06:51 PM

seems to me, senor garces has put the brakes on his upword mobility within.

JESSE - 4-25-2011 at 06:53 PM

Legalize it, theres no other way.

choyero - 4-25-2011 at 06:57 PM

How many people are going to have to die before they figure out victory is unattainable.

The problem is that which drugs can be legalized? Pot seems harmless, but the rest including meth, crack, heroin and other hard drugs seem like a death wish to all societys.

My golden years

Dave - 4-25-2011 at 07:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JESSE
Legalize it, theres no other way.


Legalize, or not...I don't care anymore. I figure the time I got left ain't enough for society to go completely down the toilet.

Hell, I might just decide to start doing lots of drugs just to remind people what complete a$$holes these idiots really are.

Or maybe I'll just shoot a few for target practice.

Salsa - 4-25-2011 at 07:42 PM

"Victory Unattainable"

The alternative is devastating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don

Ken Bondy - 4-25-2011 at 07:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Salsa
"Victory Unattainable"

The alternative is devastating!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don


What might the alternative be, and how could it be more devastating than what is happening now?

DENNIS - 4-25-2011 at 07:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
What might the alternative be, and how could it be more devastating than what is happening now?



Perhaps a Mexico in the hands of cartel sponsored legislators.

Marc - 4-25-2011 at 09:32 PM

Garcés hit the nail on the head.

gnukid - 4-25-2011 at 09:50 PM

There is a historical context that is available, yet few want to see the truth; there is more to gain through conflict and chaos, than from homeostasis.

How long ago do you think bankers learned that funding both sides of a conflict was more profitable than peace?

The moment that the individual removes their support for conflict it the moment the war ends.

A military Veteran would know this as well as a Pacifist.

Cypress - 4-26-2011 at 07:44 AM

Legalize pot.

choyero - 4-26-2011 at 07:59 AM

SNAFU

comitan - 4-26-2011 at 01:01 PM

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/04/201142...

elbeau - 4-26-2011 at 03:00 PM

It sickens me to think about how many people are harmed because of their own addictions to drugs...but it sickens me worse to think about how many non-US residents are being brutalized and killed because of the US's addiction to drugs. We have made progress in the "war on drugs" through education, but not through enforcement. The only answer is legalization...but it should be done right, and we can look to our own alcohol laws for guidance.

Alcohol is controlled. There are controls on what you can do under its influence. There are controls on what age you are supposed to be before you start using it, etc..

Now, we all know that those laws don't stop minors from drinking and they don't stop drunks from driving. But we can enforce the violations.

The violence associated with drug smuggling and distribution owes it's life to the fact that the only way to get drugs is to get them from criminal organizations. It's exactly like the problems we faced ourselves in the days of prohibition. SOMEBODY WILL SUPPLY DRUGS and the harder we make that to do, the more brutal the suppliers will become.

Whether we like it or not, America WILL BUY DRUGS, and it is impossible to "win" the war when we (not me personally, I mean the country) are the enemy.

The answer is actually pretty simple, and it shouldn't be offensive to either the right or the left:

LEGALIZE DRUGS...but put VERY unreasonable controls on who can buy them compared to other products. For example, make it illegal to buy or use drugs before you turn 30...make it illegal to posses drugs AND have a drivers license...just make it stupidly inconvenient to "legally" buy drugs...but DO make them available.

If you do, then you'll shift the flow of drugs and money away from large criminal organizations. You won't necessarily stop or even slow down drug use in America, but you will SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the level of criminal activity...not because of it's newly-found "legality"...but because just like alcohol and tobacco crimes (ie: distributing to minors), your offenders will be small-time locals without much criminal hierarchy.

Then, we can put a more American face to our problem and quit blaming the smugglers. Then we can devote funds to the only thing proven to help the drug situation: Education. Then we will stop enticing young people to commit serious crimes for our drug dollars.

What we are doing now is BEYOND STUPID. Most people in America think that by controlling the drug trade rather than fighting it with guns, that we are giving up the moral high ground. I couldn't disagree more. As a nation, we're just hiding from the facts by blaming the smugglers instead of our culture for the problems.

DENNIS - 4-26-2011 at 03:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by elbeau
It sickens me to think about how many people are harmed because of their own addictions to drugs...


Absolute bull****. They harm themselves. The only thing sickening about it is that they don't kill themselves.
I mean....they know it's dangerous, but they persist to get high and feel good.
Good. Die, but don't expect me to change your diapers.
Druggies have ruined a good part of my life for their activities.
F***'em. They don't care about me....I don't care about them.

DIE.....thank you.

[Edited on 4-28-2011 by BajaNomad]

Dying to Win the Fight

MrBillM - 4-26-2011 at 04:06 PM

GOOD Idea.

I've always been in favor of poisoning the supply.

Those who initially die will have died for a good cause and a warning to others.

Those that die after the word gets out deserve it for having failed the Darwin test.

In any case, WE win.

Bajahowodd - 4-26-2011 at 04:37 PM

First off, I do not use marijuana. That said, I'm pretty sure that certain folks posting on this thread have been known to tip a few beverages containing alcohol. There's a huge body of evidence that shows marijuana is, if not less dangerous than alcohol, certainly no more.

Fact is that the furschlugginer war on drugs was started in the US by Nixon, who wanted to get back at that hippie bunch who was protesting his ongoing commitment in Viet Nam. (Remember, if you will, that he ran his first successful campaign on ending that conflict, but managed to use the same MO in his second campaign.

Now, let's go to Mexico. Like it or not, the PRI folks ran the country for decades. It wasn't until Fox became presidente waving the banner of PAN, that the heat began to get cranked-up on the cartels. Calderon just turned up that heat from simmer to boil.

Fact is, that PAN is fundamentally a business oriented, and politicaly conservative party, not much unlike our GOP.

The US war on drugs has become something with its own life, what with the tens of thousands of folks who make a living participating in it. Not gonna be shut down anytime soon.

Similarly, I'd venture a guess that fat cat politicians and savvy business folks in Mexico are also profiting from this insane war.

They recently decriminalize certain drugs in Mexico. To the extent, for instance, that tourists lounging on the beaches of Cabo, not only have to deal with people selling junk jewerly, pottery and hair-braiding, but are also openly offer pot for sale.

The incongruity of this can be seen where some resident of California who has a marijuana card, and thereby the legal right to purchase, possess and use marijuana in California, could buy some pot on Medano Beach in Cabo , but when hitting the border, will have it confiscated by the federal authorities, despite the fact that they were breaking no law in Mexico, or in California.

Go figure.

[Edited on 4-26-2011 by Bajahowodd]

DENNIS - 4-26-2011 at 04:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd
First off, I do not use marijuana. That said, I'm pretty sure that certain folks posting on this thread have been known to tip a few beverages containing alcohol. There's a huge body of evidence that shows marijuana is, if not less dangerous than alcohol, certainly no more.




Stop. Stop it right there. I won't read anymore. It would have to be uber-rediculous.
Get drunk....Get high....enjoy life. You only live once.

Bajahowodd - 4-26-2011 at 05:10 PM

You sure about that. amigo? :P

DENNIS - 4-26-2011 at 05:36 PM

Yes....We have to update our arguements.

choyero - 4-26-2011 at 05:55 PM

To those that think drugs are now decriminalized.

Go smoke a joint in Mexico in front of a cop and then come back and tell us how decriminilized it really is.

DENNIS - 4-26-2011 at 05:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by choyero
To those that think drugs are now decriminalized.

Go smoke a joint in Mexico in front of a cop and then come back and tell us how decriminilized it really is.



I wouldn't even drink a beer in front of a cop if I didn't have one for him.

I don't understand your point.

mulegemichael - 4-26-2011 at 08:26 PM

does he have to have a point?...at this point?..and on and on.

toneart - 4-26-2011 at 09:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by elbeau
It sickens me to think about how many people are harmed because of their own addictions to drugs...but it sickens me worse to think about how many non-US residents are being brutalized and killed because of the US's addiction to drugs. We have made progress in the "war on drugs" through education, but not through enforcement. The only answer is legalization...but it should be done right, and we can look to our own alcohol laws for guidance.

Alcohol is controlled. There are controls on what you can do under its influence. There are controls on what age you are supposed to be before you start using it, etc..

Now, we all know that those laws don't stop minors from drinking and they don't stop drunks from driving. But we can enforce the violations.

The violence associated with drug smuggling and distribution owes it's life to the fact that the only way to get drugs is to get them from criminal organizations. It's exactly like the problems we faced ourselves in the days of prohibition. SOMEBODY WILL SUPPLY DRUGS and the harder we make that to do, the more brutal the suppliers will become.

Whether we like it or not, America WILL BUY DRUGS, and it is impossible to "win" the war when we (not me personally, I mean the country) are the enemy.

The answer is actually pretty simple, and it shouldn't be offensive to either the right or the left:

LEGALIZE DRUGS...but put VERY unreasonable controls on who can buy them compared to other products. For example, make it illegal to buy or use drugs before you turn 30...make it illegal to posses drugs AND have a drivers license...just make it stupidly inconvenient to "legally" buy drugs...but DO make them available.

If you do, then you'll shift the flow of drugs and money away from large criminal organizations. You won't necessarily stop or even slow down drug use in America, but you will SUBSTANTIALLY reduce the level of criminal activity...not because of it's newly-found "legality"...but because just like alcohol and tobacco crimes (ie: distributing to minors), your offenders will be small-time locals without much criminal hierarchy.

Then, we can put a more American face to our problem and quit blaming the smugglers. Then we can devote funds to the only thing proven to help the drug situation: Education. Then we will stop enticing young people to commit serious crimes for our drug dollars.

What we are doing now is BEYOND STUPID. Most people in America think that by controlling the drug trade rather than fighting it with guns, that we are giving up the moral high ground. I couldn't disagree more. As a nation, we're just hiding from the facts by blaming the smugglers instead of our culture for the problems.


Well thought out, elbeau. The only thing I would disagree with is your restriction up to age 30. That would not work and that would also miss all the tax revenue for that age group. They can go to War at 18 and they can drink at 21. 21 should be the legal age for pot. (18 would be OK with me).

Howodd,

Right on!
I would disagree with you when you say it wouldn't be opposed by the Left or the Right. Wrong! The issue is absolutely split along those lines. The Ideology on the Right blindly trumps logic, as it does on most other issues such as Economics, Social issues and War. There's no use trying to convince them. They drank the Cool Aid when Nixon was President. (There are a few exceptions...very few).

They will counter this and your concepts with the usual insults and name calling. When it comes just translate it to read "Blah blah blah".

The stupid War On Drugs and resultant violence (violence begets violence) must stop!!!
:fire:

Begetting

MrBillM - 4-27-2011 at 08:48 AM

Borrowing a (related) phrase, "Kill them All. God will sort them out".

Obviously, killing them all is NOT possible, but it's a worthy goal to work towards.

Cypress - 4-27-2011 at 01:29 PM

Yep! Hope those folks that are all about keeping pot illegal are proud. They just dug up over a hundred bodies in a mass grave south of the border, compliments of the "keep it illegal" crowd. How much more blood will have to flow? The death toll is already in the tens of thousands. The only folks that benefit from this farce are law enforcement, the pharmacutical industry, lawyers, judges, and of course, the drug cartels. Even grammer school kids know illegalized pot doesn't add up:O.

Bajahowodd - 4-27-2011 at 02:34 PM

Cypress, I partially agree with what you say. But, there are lot's of others you can add to the list. I would certainly add the fundamentalist religious crowd that believes you need to behave as they want you to.

Then, there are those who would pander to the anti-pot crowd.

Just a small coincidence that given the GOP landslide last November, times are a'changing. Except that what they've been up to was never part of their stated agenda. You know, like eliminating collective bargaining rights, or gutting Medicare, or cutting taxes further for the wealthy and corporations. Or how about this. In a state that had already implemented a reasonable medical marijuana law, the GOP majority is seeking to just about eliminate medical marijuana.

The governor is a Dem and previously vetoed a bill similar to this one, but not as far reaching as this new one.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/27/montana-lawmakers-p...

[Edited on 4-27-2011 by Bajahowodd]

Cypress - 4-27-2011 at 02:51 PM

Bajahowodd, You're right! There's plenty of blame to go around for the ineptitude called "The War On Drugs".:no:

jenny.navarrette - 4-27-2011 at 03:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
Yep! Hope those folks that are all about keeping pot illegal are proud. They just dug up over a hundred bodies in a mass grave south of the border, compliments of the "keep it illegal" crowd. How much more blood will have to flow? The death toll is already in the tens of thousands. The only folks that benefit from this farce are law enforcement, the pharmacutical industry, lawyers, judges, and of course, the drug cartels. Even grammer school kids know illegalized pot doesn't add up:O.


Even Mexico's president Felipe Calderon is opposed to the legalization of drugs in the US. He does not believe it will reduce the crimes in Mexico in the least. He has access to the greatest minds in the area, and extensive studies, and intelligence you could never see, including direct talks with the cartel leaders.

I'm curious why, in light of these facts, you stick to that tired old mantra of legalizing drugs? What information do you have that is superior to the guy who is neck-deep in the problem?

I'd be very interested in knowing how a person who sits in the cheap bleacher seats in right field seems to know more than the team manager.

Mexico cannot win the war on drugs because Mexico is corrupt, from top to bottom. Calderon even said he was totally taken by surprise by the depth of corruption in Mexico. Every Mexican knows what is going on and most are involved in thed drug business in one way or another, or depend upon the money it puts into circulation. Even if they are not involved, they just look the other way.

ELINVESTIG8R - 4-27-2011 at 03:46 PM

NEVER! On the legalization of drugs. They do that and we have a society of mindless drug addicted citizens. Our country as we know it will be over. I say send in the killing squads and annihilate them. There is no salvation or rehabilitation for any of those cartel members, especially the mindless killers they have on their payroll. They are pure evil. Until then it is business as usual. The corrupt become more corrupt and richer while hundreds of innocent people continue to be murdered. It’s a no-brainer!

Cypress - 4-27-2011 at 04:09 PM

jenny.navarrette, Team manager?:D The folks in the "cheap seats"? There're a lot more "eyes" in the cheap seats than in the team managers seat, he only has two. And his job depends upon keeping 'em illegal.
ELINVESTIGOR, You said it! It's a "no-brainer". Legalize 'em.:D

DENNIS - 4-27-2011 at 04:21 PM

It isn't a "drug war" anymore in Mexico. It's a war for control of the country.
Cartel sponsered legislators will run the country.
Then....what are you going to say?

Bajahowodd - 4-27-2011 at 04:33 PM

"Mexico cannot win the war on drugs because Mexico is corrupt, from top to bottom. Calderon even said he was totally taken by surprise by the depth of corruption in Mexico. Every Mexican knows what is going on and most are involved in thed drug business in one way or another, or depend upon the money it puts into circulation. Even if they are not involved, they just look the other way."
-Jenny.Navarette

Nobody is going to win this so-called war. Except for those who financially benefit from it, while it is being waged. The US has an incredible bureaucracy that counts tens of thousands on the payroll. Yet, in a certain sense, it is nothing but theater. Unless you are someone who has lost a loved one in this unnecessary sham battle.
Not to mention the tens of thousands of people sitting in prisons who committed a victimless crime.

I've said it in the past. The genesis of this so-called war occurred during Nixon's term in office. Despite the dirty little fact that a huge number of our troops, fighting in Nam were smoking weed every day, Nixon got the feeling that the uncomfortable dissent on the war was fueled by pot smoking hippies, and he decided to show them.

That said, this issue does contain great complexities. For instance, if we were to legalize pot, is that where we draw the line? While there is a vast body of evidence that show marijuana to be a fundamentally harmless intoxicant, what to do about cocaine, meth and even heroin?

Let's just say that it just snowed in August and the US legalized pot. Fact is that the Mexican cartels have a long-standing, and very sophisticated delivery system for just about anything. I doubt they will turn to delivering flowers on Mothers Day.

So. Even if this nation could come to an understanding about pot, then what about cocaine? What about meth? What about heroin?

Gawd. Sure wish I had a simple answer.

Bajahowodd - 4-27-2011 at 04:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
It isn't a "drug war" anymore in Mexico. It's a war for control of the country.
Cartel sponsered legislators will run the country.
Then....what are you going to say?


Really good point. But you may have only touched on the edge of the political issue. Since the big kerfuffle only started after the election of PAN member Fox, do you think that maybe the PRI are just sitting around and salivating, about now?

CortezBlue - 4-27-2011 at 04:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ridge


Balderdash; what big respectable corporation would be involved in that?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mex...

Well all right; let's concede that perhaps there is an embedded business motive.

Surely our gummint wouldn't be involved in anything untoward now would they?

"...One of Hamilton Securities’ goals was to map out how the flows of money worked in the U.S. and create software tools that would make this information accessible to communities ..."


I think this gal is on drugs:(

what a stupid video

Bajahowodd - 4-27-2011 at 05:33 PM

Not necessarily. Just consider the immense amount of money that passes through the drug dealing process.

Just may think that the few very rich folks may have already won the war.

Consider that for the most part, the business school graduates who are working on Wall Street have long since dismissed the idea that any sovereign nation and its government matters. The only thing that matters is profits.

Transnational corporations have no allegiance to any single nation. Similarly, the cartel fat cats do not, as well.

Who knows what money laundering techniques are being employed by the cartels that may very well involve the casino that is Wall Street.

DENNIS - 4-27-2011 at 05:39 PM

There are two governments to blame for this entire mess. They allowed this.
So disheartening.

bajadock - 4-27-2011 at 05:44 PM

Howodd,
How about a big bank like Wachovia, for example. Wach' is now part of Wells Fargo.

edited: I see my link is similar to that of CortezBlue on pg2 of this thread. The banks are definitely shareholders in the drug war.

[Edited on 4-28-2011 by bajadock]

monoloco - 4-28-2011 at 06:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ELINVESTIG8R
NEVER! On the legalization of drugs. They do that and we have a society of mindless drug addicted citizens. Our country as we know it will be over. I say send in the killing squads and annihilate them. There is no salvation or rehabilitation for any of those cartel members, especially the mindless killers they have on their payroll. They are pure evil. Until then it is business as usual. The corrupt become more corrupt and richer while hundreds of innocent people continue to be murdered. It’s a no-brainer!
Since when did drugs being illegal deter anyone from using them?

Counting the Dead.

MrBillM - 4-28-2011 at 09:48 AM

Whenever, ANYONE ends up dead at the hands of the Druggies in Mex, there is a chorus of "Well, THOSE had something to do with the business and were NOT innocents".

On the other hand, the same bunch seems to trot out those same DEAD as VICTIMS of the violence whenever that suits their point.

I know that it's unreasonable to expect any consistency from the "Legalize" bunch, BUT ............................ ?

Cypress - 4-28-2011 at 10:39 AM

Legalize pot, plain and simple. See how that shakes out, then move on from there.

Ken Bondy - 4-28-2011 at 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
I know that it's unreasonable to expect any consistency from the "Legalize" bunch, BUT ............................ ?


As a proud member of the "Legalize" bunch, can you please point out any inconsistencies in my position?

[Edited on 4-28-2011 by Ken Bondy]

DENNIS - 4-28-2011 at 11:10 AM

It just may have to be legalized, but it seems to me like legalizing cancer.
Of course, if governments don't have what it takes to fight the war, what are you gonna do?

ELINVESTIG8R - 4-28-2011 at 11:21 AM

Monoloco,

Legalizing drugs will cause people who were once hesitant to use drugs because of the severe penalties to now feel free to use drugs and will probably become addicted. Why chance that and just get more addicts. There is no amount of talking that will ever convince me that legalizing drugs is the answer to the drug war. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

Cypress - 4-28-2011 at 11:24 AM

So pot is addictive?:O Who would 've thunk it?:O

Ken Bondy - 4-28-2011 at 11:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ELINVESTIG8R
Legalizing drugs will cause people who were once hesitant to use drugs because of the severe penalties to now feel free to use drugs and will probably become addicted. Why chance that and just get more addicts. There is no amount of talking that will ever convince me that legalizing drugs is the answer to the drug war. That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.


In my opinion, deterrance is not a significant factor in ones choice to use or not use. The US has the most severe penalty for murder (death) and we have more murders per capita than any other country. That might not be a perfect analogy but I believe it is valid. And even if legalization does create a few more addicts, how can that offset the incredible violence and loss of life created by the illegal drug business? Clearly legalization is the lesser of those evils. Legalization is the only answer. Not perfect, but the only thing that has ever had a chance of working.

DENNIS - 4-28-2011 at 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
The US has the most severe penalty for murder (death) and we have more murders per capita than any other country.


Not quite:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murde...

ELINVESTIG8R - 4-28-2011 at 11:44 AM

Ken we could go on to Ad nausium about this issue. Suffice it to say that the leaders better get it together and come up with a game plan because what is going on now is not working.

Cypress - 4-28-2011 at 11:46 AM

Ken Bondy, You take fantastic underwater pictures and have a good way with words. Glad you're on the legalization side of this issue. The anti-legalization bunch? Same old wornout arguments. Disproved, debunked and discredited. But they cling to their opinions, makes you wonder?

Ken Bondy - 4-28-2011 at 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Quote:
Originally posted by Ken Bondy
The US has the most severe penalty for murder (death) and we have more murders per capita than any other country.


Not quite:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murde...


DENNIS Thanks for that!! Jeez I've been using that quote for years (like maybe back when it was true :)). Gonna have to change my argument and work #24 into it. Anyway thanks for the research. ++Ken++

Ken Bondy - 4-28-2011 at 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ELINVESTIG8R
Ken we could go on to Ad nausium about this issue. Suffice it to say that the leaders better get it together and come up with a game plan because what is going on now is not working.


Sure agree with that.

Ken Bondy - 4-28-2011 at 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cypress
Ken Bondy, You take fantastic underwater pictures and have a good way with words. Glad you're on the legalization side of this issue. The anti-legalization bunch? Same old wornout arguments. Disproved, debunked and discredited. But they cling to their opinions, makes you wonder?


Thanks Cypress. I am often surprised at how strongly those against legalization argue for a system that clearly doesn't work.

tripledigitken - 4-28-2011 at 12:34 PM

I would like to see a model of legalization that is successful with eliminating illegal trafficking.

Even Holland, which is erroneously cited as having legalized drugs, has seen increased trafficking of hard drugs recently with it's non enforcement policy towards "soft drugs".

The cartels will not be folding their tents if the US were to legalize pot. The likelihood of the US legalizing all "illegal drugs" will never happen in my opinion. The cartels will just provide what is not legal, or undercut the price of government controlled drugs.

Look at California with its tolerant policy towards pot, is now rethinking the whole medical marijuana retail stores policy. They are a joke really, I mean does anyone really think that the customers of those stores are all there for medical reasons?

I don't know what is going to be the solution to the crime related effects of our (USA) addiction to rec drugs.

monoloco - 4-28-2011 at 03:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by tripledigitken
I would like to see a model of legalization that is successful with eliminating illegal trafficking.

Even Holland, which is erroneously cited as having legalized drugs, has seen increased trafficking of hard drugs recently with it's non enforcement policy towards "soft drugs".

The cartels will not be folding their tents if the US were to legalize pot. The likelihood of the US legalizing all "illegal drugs" will never happen in my opinion. The cartels will just provide what is not legal, or undercut the price of government controlled drugs.

Look at California with its tolerant policy towards pot, is now rethinking the whole medical marijuana retail stores policy. They are a joke really, I mean does anyone really think that the customers of those stores are all there for medical reasons?

I don't know what is going to be the solution to the crime related effects of our (USA) addiction to rec drugs.
Of course all those customers are not there for medical reasons. Why does it matter? If someone wants to sit at home and smoke dope (or drink alcohol, shoot heroin, or snort cocaine) until they're stupid why should anyone care? The only thing that's important to me is that they don't break in to my house to steal stuff to get the money to buy it.

Dave - 4-28-2011 at 03:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
If someone wants to sit at home and smoke dope (or drink alcohol, shoot heroin, or snort cocaine) until they're stupid why should anyone care? The only thing that's important to me is that they don't break in to my house to steal stuff to get the money to buy it.


Only truly addictive personalities sit at home and get high. The majority of drug use is social. If not, we wouldn't be having this debate.

DENNIS - 4-28-2011 at 04:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave
Only truly addictive personalities sit at home and get high. The majority of drug use is social. If not, we wouldn't be having this debate.


It's kinda like communion for a Catholic.



.

[Edited on 4-28-2011 by DENNIS]

Bajahowodd - 4-28-2011 at 04:07 PM

I stand on my earlier premise that while legalizing pot is probably the right thing to do, (and so is gay marrigae), as I also noted, and Ken chimed-in, pot is really on a part of what's at stake. As I said, inasmuch as the cartels already have an international delivery and sales system in place, not to mention a huge arsenal, I just can't see that legalizing pot is really connected to the cartel/ crime problem.

That said, for those who dismiss the medical marijuana thing, without naming names, I can absolutely attest to its efficacy. Someone that I know very well has literally been able to stop taking a number of expensive prescription drugs by substituting marijuana.

You folks that embrace the idea propagated by the old propaganda flick Reefer Madness need to understand that not only was that movie produced in 1937, but it was produced for specific propaganda purposes.

As I mentioned previously, I do not smoke the stuff. But, I have first hand knowledge that medicinal pot actually works. Of course, the whole thing is greatly abused, what with people who make up ailments and go to doctors who are more than willing to right a scrip. But, if the stuff was lust legalized, the doctors to whom I refer could stop being hoars.

tripledigitken - 4-28-2011 at 04:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd
I stand on my earlier premise that while legalizing pot is probably the right thing to do, (and so is gay marrigae), as I also noted, and Ken chimed-in, pot is really on a part of what's at stake. As I said, inasmuch as the cartels already have an international delivery and sales system in place, not to mention a huge arsenal, I just can't see that legalizing pot is really connected to the cartel/ crime problem.

That said, for those who dismiss the medical marijuana thing, without naming names, I can absolutely attest to its efficacy. Someone that I know very well has literally been able to stop taking a number of expensive prescription drugs by substituting marijuana.

You folks that embrace the idea propagated by the old propaganda flick Reefer Madness need to understand that not only was that movie produced in 1937, but it was produced for specific propaganda purposes.

As I mentioned previously, I do not smoke the stuff. But, I have first hand knowledge that medicinal pot actually works. Of course, the whole thing is greatly abused, what with people who make up ailments and go to doctors who are more than willing to right a scrip. But, if the stuff was lust legalized, the doctors to whom I refer could stop being hoars.


Howard,

I hope you are not throwing me in with those that embrace the Reefer Madness......

My post was addressing only this thread topic.... "Drug War...."

I made no judgement on the use at all. My point was the likelihood of legalizing pot, just pot, in the most liberal of states (California) is fading. Cities are reexamining the whole process, as it has become obvious to most everyone that it is a vehicle to sell to almost all that have the money to pay up. That's the "Joke" part.

Of course I agree that it is effective in pain control, in fact I have personal experience in my family of it being effective in a cancer case.

Ken

A New Dance in Californy ?

MrBillM - 4-28-2011 at 07:06 PM

The Gay Marrigae, Odd ?

Oh, OK, That's Merengue.

Or, is it a Bitter Gay (Lemon) Meringue ?

OR ....... ?

[Edited on 4-29-2011 by MrBillM]