| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
oldlady
Banned
Posts: 1714
Registered: 10-31-2005
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Cypress, Thanks, very gracious of you....think you would have enjoyed my "oozing brain" searching through my post to figure out what the Hades I
typed before I launched my salvo!
|
|
|
Skeet/Loreto
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4709
Registered: 9-2-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
It is False Logic to equate Mexico with the States on Drugs as a vast amount only come through mexico from columbia.
And of Course we have the Corn fields of Calif. , The Trinity Mountains for Pot. and even the Plains of Texas where now they use Movable Trailers to
Cook DOPE at night and then move to another Lonely Field for the next batch.
The Problem is DEMAND.
The citizens of Amarillo just Voted Down, for the second time in 2 years, a No Smoking Ban,
Survival of The Fitest
|
|
|
oldlady
Banned
Posts: 1714
Registered: 10-31-2005
Location: BCS
Member Is Offline
|
|
Fulano,
First I am confused because most of your statements sounded like the frame of reference was the US, but the last sentence "8,000 more Mexicans will
die" didn't follow, unless I missed something. (Yuk, this would be so much easier to do verbally).
Second, the answer to your question is the vote would be no.
I could pick back at you on the numbers. But I am not trying to win an argument here so I can swipe a spit laden figure across my screen and say
score one for the old broad. Besides, I'm not that smart.
Sometimes, and this may be the case here, people get too knotted up in the tactical aspects of a solution that they lose sight of the problem they are
trying to solve. Indeed they forget their determination to solve the problem. I think politicians are guilty of this......a lot.
Perhaps the social costs that you refer to are already being borne....As an example, that 5K a month that you reference is being spent now on the
monthly income for a family with children whose policeman husband was killed or disabled in an activity directly related to or caused by drugs.
Hard hearted Hannah that I am, I would craft a bill that does not provide for caring of people who "amp" out. Let their families figure it out. Let
private charitable agencies and churches figure it out. Let those who want to help them do so, but do not burden the taxpayer. Yes, if they don't
get help they may die. Stuff happens.
Everybody seems to agree that the drug cartels are very dangerous. I maintained that the reason the problem worsened in Mexico was because
demand was enhanced with legalized possession. Legalize the sale and watch good ol' American capitalism(Phillip Morris, Merck, Schering Plough)
marginalize them fast! Now, build a program that changes the culture. The US reduced smoking in huge numbers. We've turned smokers into pariahs.
We can do it with drugs. But when we try to protect people from their own stupidity, in my opinion, it's like pushing a rope.
|
|
|
mtgoat666
Select Nomad
Posts: 19743
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldlady
Let those who want to help them do so, but do not burden the taxpayer. Yes, if they don't get help they may die. Stuff happens.
|
your a heartless, cold grinch. i thank the lord that most people have more humanity.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
MtGoat---------I think you should help them all you can--------just please don't require, or expect ME to also help--------I spend my money on helping
those who demonstrate that they want to help themselves, not parasites who are bent on self-destruction. Right now that entails helping my kids and
grandkids, all who are very successful but can use a little extra help from time to time to make things come together faster.
barry
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6700
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Barry. Very successful???? why don't you say you only help your own? who are not "parasites"
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
Barry. Very successful???? why don't you say you only help your own? who are not "parasites" |
Yes, my kids and grandkids (8) are all successful, so far. 6 are already adults.
I do help "my own", but when they are not needing it I also help deserving folks outside my family if I think I can facilitate them being more
successful. Attitude is everything, with me, and I only help those with the "right attitude" by my deffinition.
My main help with kids and grandkids is to fund their ROTH IRAS each year----at least those that are working. It is a good tax-free investment, and
will help them down the road.
barry
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Oldlady wrote:
"Legalize the sale and watch good ol' American capitalism(Phillip Morris, Merck, Schering Plough) marginalize them fast! Now, build a program that
changes the culture. The US reduced smoking in huge numbers. We've turned smokers into pariahs. We can do it with drugs. But when we try to protect
people from their own stupidity, in my opinion, it's like pushing a rope."
This is what has happened in Amsterdam, public education and social stigma have limited the problem.
Fulano,
You have stated: “You are mixing up your data. Those ancient drugs were used as analgesics by ancient doctors. They were not "recreational" drugs used
to get high. The refined form of opium, morphine, is still used as an analgesic.”
Would you please account for the presence of tobacco, marijuana and cocaine in ancient Egyptian mummies? Are you trying to tell me that people have
not historically used these drugs for recreation? Give me a break! Human beings are highly addictive organisms and seek out experiences and substances
that change consciousness. To deny this is to deny a basic trait of human beings. “Care for some coffee” says the Turk. “Care for some tea” says the
Brit. “Care for a pull on my hooka”, says the Indian. “How about a beer mate” says the Aussie?
You said: “Do I need to give you a lecture in logic?
Having paid for a rather good education in Logic: Ancient, Medieval and Non Aristotelian, I don’t need the lecture.
You went on to say:”You have reduced the entire problem down to an "either/or" scenario. Your entire position is that if drugs are legalized,
organized crime will disappear. You have no proof of that. You just assume the conclusion.”
If you examine my premise it is not an either/or but rather an if/then premise and I did not say that crime would disappear. That is a redefinition of
my statements. To assert that crime would disappear is naïve at best. You are using the logical device of “redefinition” and “Reductio ad absurdum”
and it is not useful to the dialogue. You further use the device of “false premise” in your positing my position as an either/or.
You have written: “Your supporters have also totally ignored that fact that your great experiment was tried in the past, and failed. Up until the
early 1900's, heroin, opium and marijuana were legal. There were twice the number of people, per capita, addicted to opium and heroin then than there
are now that they are illegal.”
You here use the debating device of “guilt by association” when you use the term “Your supporters”. If you mean that others have argued this point,
then that is another matter. I belong to no group that advocates for the legalization of any drugs.
You make my point when you write:”Up until the early 1900's, heroin, opium and marijuana were legal. There were twice the number of people, per
capita, addicted to opium and heroin then than there are now that they are illegal.”
You make my point that criminalizing behavior does not stop it. The behavior continues despite attempts to change it via criminalization. You are
arguing degree not kind. You are saying that there is MORE use of some drugs prior to criminalization. That is an argument of degree. My argument is
one of kind. I believe that drug use will not go away and criminalization has not decreased use of many drugs and these drugs appear to wax and wane
in their use over time.
I have pointed out the failure of prohibition to stop alcohol use and the secondary consequence of it driving the trade underground which increased
the number and power of gangs. Gangs existed before Prohibition; Prohibition gave the gangs a very popular commodity that they could peddle.
You conclude a causal relationship between criminalization and decreased use of illicit drugs. They are now criminalized and their use has increased,
and in some cases to m epidemic proportions. I believe that social sanction is more powerful than laws i.e. the decrease in tobacco use as a result of
a very powerful public education campaign. It seems to me that each generation goes about the business of learning on its own the folly of drug abuse.
Note the rise and fall of cocaine use in this country. It is also clear that not all drug users are either addicts or abusers. Some people are able to
drink and not have it ruin their lives. Some people are able to use other drugs and not become addicted. The problem is that it is a bit of a roulette
game and those with bad genes in that department are not able to just use recreationally. Some who take up boxing will suffer from permanent brain
damage.
You stated: “You have conveniently ignored my post that told you that Mexico decriminalized possession of small quantities of illegal drugs two years
ago, to no effect, and continue to bang the drum about legalizing drugs to solve the drug problem.”
Here you use the debating device of an ad homonym argument. By implying that I do not respond to your statement by “conveniently ignoring” it, you
imply motivation to me that does not exist. I believe that FlyfishingPam addressed this issue and I seconded her analysis, that being that
decriminalization is not the same as legalization and the affect of these two different approaches would of course be different. Under
decriminalization the user must still access the product, which is now primarily controlled by Cartels. Further I do not believe, nor have I stated,
nor do I believe that I have implied that legalization would “solve the drug problem”. There are too many levels to this for any one approach to
resolve this very complex issue. I am however saying that the current way of dealing with this problem is an abject failure and incredibly expensive
and destructive to boot.
You state: “If you tax the price of your newly legalized "recreational drugs" to fund a medical trust to pay for the costs, nobody will pay it. They
will just get their drugs cheaper and illegally because there is no social cost attached. Think about it. One $25 street priced balloon of heroin
could totally amp them out. It would then cost somebody $5,000 per month in medical, psychiatric, housing and food costs to carry the person for the
next 60 years until they die. That's $3.6 million of costs. How do you tack on to the $25 price for balloon of heroin the present value of another
$3.6 million?
Even if you argue -- conservatively -- that only one "recreational drug" user in 100 will need this kind of lifetime support, that still puts the cost
of the tax on one hit at $36,000. Take it even one step further. Even if you argue that only one user in 100 will need this kind of lifetime support,
and that person will purchase 100 doses in his lifetime, that would still require a tax of $360 per dose.
There is no way you could ever fund the cost to society of drug users by taxing the drugs.”
There is now a significant cost to you in how this issue is being addressed. I will not cite the overall cost break down for the entire “War on Drugs”
but will cite the direct cost of incarceration. I can find and post the figures for the current “War on Drugs” but don’t want to expend the time right
now.
20% of those incarcerated in State prisons, whereas Federal prison percentages are higher, are incarcerated for drug offences.
In 2005 over 1,500,000 there were arrests of adults for drug charges.
The cost of incarceration for individual drug offenders in US in 1997 was over $24,000 per year. That figure is now eleven years old and now the costs
are in the $30,000 plus range.
Enough, time for bed!
Iflyfish
|
|
|
Iflyfish
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3747
Registered: 10-17-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
rts551
You write: "Ful, ........ Lets here what you would change that would fix the problem."
Silence
Iflfyfish
|
|
|
pargo
Nomad
Posts: 162
Registered: 9-14-2006
Location: Burbank Ca.
Member Is Offline
Mood: Baja Nomas
|
|
I remember back in school, all the way back in junior high and up. There were the "good students" or "nerds" if you will...then there were the stoners
of all sorts. I knew many of them. I kind of relate it all to the story of the two squirels..one was a laboriuos hard working little fellow getting
ready for the long winter. The other, well you know the rest.
Those stoners are the sprung chickens and crack and meth heads we all see on the streets today. They are a burden to us all in a lot of ways.
Why should we (the hard working squirels) foot the bill for losers who knowingly made the wrong choices in life. We could all have chosen the easy
path of the stoners but the majority of us worked hard for what little, or alot , of what we've accomplished in our lives. That's life. It's cruel
reality. You lag behind...you lose...your fault.
OLdlady...you're right on
|
|
|
fulano
Banned
Posts: 496
Registered: 3-31-2008
Location: Ramona, CA
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Iflyfish
rts551
You write: "Ful, ........ Lets here what you would change that would fix the problem."
Silence
Iflfyfish |
Well, you see, fish, I never said I had a solution. I said legalizing drugs was NOT the solution. I also gave citations to historical data that
demonstrated it was not the solution. If you are having trouble with your reading comprehension, I can recommend some study books. And as far as your
debating skills go, you might want to consider a college level course in logic. If you took one, you would learn that the burden of proof lies with
the person making the assertion. Shifting the burden of proof is a common maneuver with people who have nothing more than a few opening sound bites
of information and no depth in their analysis.
I would also point out that saying, "Lets here [sic] what you would change that would fix the problem" is already doomed to logical failure as it
dismisses the current drug strategy, presupposes that the current stategy is not optimal and asks for a superior strategy.
|
|
|
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
FlyFishingPam said,
"Mexico should legalize all recreatioinal drugs---------"
"recreational drugs" ????????? Interesting "take" on illegal drugs----------recreational???????----------why would ANYBODY take DRUGS for
"recreational" purposes is way beyond me. Just look at the evidence-------what ARE these folks thinking??? Drug use is now "recreational"???
I guess I can comprehend "getting high" because it makes one "feel good", but taking drugs as "recreation"------no, that is a step too far, IMO.
def. of "recreation"= refreshment in body or mind, as after work, by some form of play---------taking drugs is "play"???
[Edited on 5-24-2008 by Barry A.] |
Barry
What would you call alcohol then? is is something you have to take to function through life, is it something you take before work or driving or
operating machinery? no it is not. it is something you do after work, on your free time for recreation. it is legal. please explain why alcohol
should be legal and the other recreationsl drugs can't. also when formulating your argument please remember the prohibition era.
[Edited on 5-26-2008 by flyfishinPam]
|
|
|
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by fulano
You have conveniently ignored my post that told you that Mexico decriminalized possession of small quantities of illegal drugs two years ago, to no
effect, and continue to bang the drum about legalizing drugs to solve the drug problem.
|
Oh really? I understood that this was proposed but struck down and never passed. BTW the legislature is trying to get it through again.
OK then if small quantities are legal like you say, then how do these people get these small quantities? by growing their own? OK for pot that holds
water, By constructing their own meth lab and making it themselves? naw probably not. OK they're growing their own coca and processing it in their
homes...
c'mon for the most part they're buying it from the pretty much legal out in the open, everybody knows about tienditas.
so if having small quanitiies is legal as you say, and then these small quanities are being bought at illegal outposts that operate in the
open becuse the failed state cannot shut them down, then this mini legalization has either not alleviated the problem or it has been made
worse according to you...is this what you are implying?
I don't think so I think you're just shooting off your mouth and have little idea what you're talking about. I don't want to sway opinions I just
want to provoke thought. Any reasonable person when they put their unbiased thought into this issue can come to the conclusion that the way things
are now has lead to failure in every way.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
FFPam--------You have a good point-------I just never thought of it that way (the "recreation" aspect), and it kinda horrified me. But I will concede
the point.
As to Fish (and others) "point" on education-------a case in point is on page 14 of the latest AARP BULLETIN where they point out that 85 to 90% of
all Lung Cancer is caused by smoking------it is education of the folks that does impact us, and it sure impacted me. The health information is what
made me finally make up my mind to quit smoking 10 years ago, and once I had made up my mind to quit, it was sooooo easy. The secret (for me at
least) was MAKING THE DECISION TO QUIT. I see this as the answer to all addiction, tho that is probably a vast oversimplification. (I like simple
answers)
Thanks for your feedback, Pam.
Barry
|
|
|
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
Ok Barry, just slow down and think and smell the roses from time to time.
At this point I can plainly see the following:
primary school children going to the tiendita to buy whatever they want.
I live right down the street from a tiendita. I would suspect they bought pot or crystal.
If these recreationsl drugs were controlled the crystal could be bought at a pharmacy like with a doctors prescription and say the pot could be bought
at a store like a liquor shop where they check your ID.
Can a toddler in diapers go into the Cactus liquor and buy a six pack? No they can't.
Can a toddler in diapers do to the tiendita and buy a gram of coke, say for their bonehead parents that are loo lazy to go and get it themselves?
The answer is a resoundng and unquestionable YES!
Now with this information drugs are illegal and the war on drugs is a complete failure.
|
|
|
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
and fulano while you brought us the suggestion:
From wikipedia:
the definition of a failed state-
A failed state is a state whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory. The
level of control required to avoid being considered a failed state varies considerably amongst authorities.[citation needed] Furthermore, the
declaration that a state has "failed" is generally controversial and, when made authoritatively, may carry significant geopolitical
consequences.[citation needed]
********
unfortunately a few of these qualities actually apply here. what kind of geopolitical consequences will there be for Mexico? likely the loss of its
autonomy and Mexico has been in a similar position before. I say this after studying very hard for a Mexican history exam that was required to get
Mex. citizenship. History is so totally repeating itself here, but if it does do a full circle we're all in big trouble. On thinking further I now
understand the Mexican's view on the future and why only the present need be important.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by flyfishinPam
Ok Barry, just slow down and think and smell the roses from time to time. |
Jeeeeze!!! that is a shot from the hip without (apparently)having any idea what my background is.-----I was a Fed. Agent in the Drug Wars for some 29
years------I have "thought" about this a great deal!!! and been involved in many seminars on the subject. To say the "drug wars" is a "complete
failure" is silly, and you are absolutely wrong----------what I was conceding was that you made some good points---------please don't take that
concession as a license to start shooting with your scatter gun, and going off the deep end. We need to come up with new ideas, implement them, and
forget the "blame game" which gets us NOWHERE, and in fact defeats our purpose.
You certainly know how to push my buttons!!! and I respect you less for that. 
barry
|
|
|
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
Barry my words were not meant as an attack as I have no way of knowing your background and I never asked for anyones respect. this is a message board
where people opine and that's what I'm doing while waiting for someone to come it and kill time so to speak.
Since you are an ex fed of 29 years in the drug war, do you see this drug war as being a successful endevor?
also my legalization comment is not meant for the USA but for Mexico where the battling on the front lines is taking place. And in knowing that
please also understand that it is only a matter of time that the front lines move north of the border.
|
|
|
Woooosh
Banned
Posts: 5240
Registered: 1-28-2007
Location: Rosarito Beach
Member Is Offline
Mood: Luminescent Waves at Rosarito Beach
|
|
My two cents...
I think the narco drug situation is nearing the tipping point. With the retail price of Cocaine down to $28/gram in San Diego- the wholsale cost must
be down to $15-20/gram. This to me means that too much cocaine is getting across the border in relation to the demand- thus driving down prices. I
think the drug gangs are fighting in Mexico to prevent rival gangs from dumping their drugs at cheap prices in the USA and further eroding the
cartel's profits.
|
|
|
LancairDriver
Super Nomad
Posts: 1601
Registered: 2-22-2008
Location: On the Road
Member Is Offline
|
|
How anyone can rationalize the "war on drugs" as bearing any resemblance to success is beyond comprehension. It is a complete failure by any
yardstick. Mexico is bearing the brunt of this failure. More Mexican police, military, and ordinary citizens have lost their lives in this "war" than
US lives that have been lost in both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan thus far..
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
