Cartel Crackdown

[Californiaman]

It's about time.

I was wondering if they were ever going to do something to stem the flow of drugs from Mexico into the United States.

There's a lot of people who woke up this morning wishing they made a better career choice.

Read All About It!

[grampa]

The problem is the users in the US. As long as an American wants something he will get it. We will not ever stop the flow of drugs into the US as long as there is a market for them.

[jimmiJAMM]

Is THIS a POLITICAL thread?

 

I'd comment but don't want to get another suspension.

[heymisterk]

I have mixed feelings on drug legalization, but I know this: As long as Americans want to get high and drugs are illegal, we will always be at war with drug cartels, and it's a war we will never win.

[Notes_Norton]

I don't do drugs anymore (did when I was a hippie). In fact, I hardly drink alcohol anymore (2-3 glasses of wine per year).

 

To me the solution is to legalize and tax them.

 

Isn't it a violation of a person's liberty to deny him/her pursuit of happiness if that happiness is marijuana or cocaine instead of alcohol? Aren't the people in jail for drug offenses political prisoners? Haven't they been denied their human rights?

 

We jail a larger percent of our population than any other civilized country on the planet, and most are for drug related crimes.

 

Now I agree no one should drive a vehicle under the influence, but that's something else. I also agree that they shouldn't be sold to minors, but should be treated like the alcohol laws.

 

Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent in a war that cannot be won. People are going to do the drugs anyway. It is a war we can't win, but we continue to throw mega-billions of dollars at it every year.

 

I think if they were legal and taxed, and half the tax money went to educational programs instead of DEA agents, helicopters, and weapons, we would be a lot better off. And it would reduce the crime. Plus the other half of the tax money would help our government balance the books. And so would the absence of spending mega-billions on a war that cannot be won.

 

Look at the attempt at alcohol prohibition and what it did to domestic crime and violence?

 

We shouldn't be protecting people from themselves. After all, hang gliding, skiing, mountain climbing, bungee jumping and numerous other activities are actually more dangerous than marijuana and cocaine anyway. So what gives us the right to say that someone can be dropped off on the top of a mountain by a helicopter with a pair of skis on, but another can't snort a little of the substance that used to be legally in Coca-Cola?

 

If they were legal, there would no longer be the drug related violence we have now, just as the end of Prohibition ended the Whiskey wars. That means innocent people won't get caught in the crossfire and the only people harmed would be the occasional drug user who cannot control it (just as a person I know is dying from drinking too much alcohol and ended up with a fried liver). But I'd rather the drug user harm himself/herself than have to steal from my mother to support a habit that is very expensive simply because it is illegal.

 

Just my opinion.

[Riffster]

The problem is the users in the US. As long as an American wants something he will get it. We will not ever stop the flow of drugs into the US as long as there is a market for them.

 

Exactly

[TommyK]

The problem is the users in the US. As long as an American wants something he will get it. We will not ever stop the flow of drugs into the US as long as there is a market for them.

 

no.

[TommyK]

As long as 'personal consumption' possession is decriminalized (in practice) there is, for those losers who partake in the substances, no dis-insentive to continue.

 

The young border jumper who got dusted this past week learned a hard lesson. Don't throw rocks at people with guns and a license to use deadly force. Rocks are a deadly weapon. The response was appropriate and justified.

[TommyK]

Is THIS a POLITICAL thread?

 

I'd comment but don't want to get another suspension.

 

no.

[TommyK]

...

Isn't it a violation of a person's liberty to deny him/her pursuit of happiness if that happiness is marijuana or cocaine instead of alcohol? Aren't the people in jail for drug offenses political prisoners? Haven't they been denied their human rights?

 

Same could be said for rapists. I don't advocate decriminalizing their pursuit of happiness either.

[Notes_Norton]

Same could be said for rapists. I don't advocate decriminalizing their pursuit of happiness either.

 

Definitely not.

 

Where there is a rapist, there is a non-willing victim. When a person smokes a joint, there is no non-willing victim.

 

Most definitely a difference.

 

Drugs, gambling, and prostitution are known as victimless crimes, and they all should be legalized.

[grampa]

Same could be said for rapists. I don't advocate decriminalizing their pursuit of happiness either.

 

 

The problem with that view is that your pursuit of happiness ends at my nose.

[heymisterk]

The young border jumper who got dusted this past week learned a hard lesson. Don't throw rocks at people with guns and a license to use deadly force. Rocks are a deadly weapon. The response was appropriate and justified.

 

 

How did he learn a lesson? He's dead, and thus, didn't get a chance to learn anything.

[Notes_Norton]

The problem with that view is that your pursuit of happiness ends at my nose.

Exactly!!!

 

So the rapist in the example violated that rule with the victim. The thief violates that rule with the victim. The person who wants to get high in the privacy of his/her own home does not violate that rule. The person who wants to hire a prostitute for an evening of pay-for-play sex does not violate that rule. The person who goes to his condominium club house and plays penny-ante poker with his/her pals does not violate that rule. Yet they are all criminals in the government's eyes.

 

If the government steps in and says you can't smoke pot, snort coke, pay for sex, or play cards for money on your own property, it is a violation of freedom and liberty and is definitely completely opposite of what the founding fathers wanted this country to be.

 

And it's not a protect us from ourselves thing either. If I guy/gal wants to abuse himself by smoking pot, playing football, mountain climbing or whatever, as long as he/she does it with consenting adults, and does it off my property, they should be able to do it.

 

More people die from Tylenol than do marijuana every year. More people fry their livers from Tylenol than do with alcohol. But it's legal.

 

More high school students get injured playing sports than any other legal or non-legal activity. But it's legal.

 

There are plenty of dangerous activates that are legal, over-eating, smoking tobacco, over-consuming alcohol, rock/mountain climbing, skiing, playing US football, hang gliding, surfing (we get shark attacks yearly around here), sun bathing (UVA and UVB), taking Tylenol, and even leading a sedentary lifestyle. So why are some legal and others illegal?

 

If you think about it long enough, and follow the money, you should be able to come up with an educated guess.

 

I'd like to return to freedom and liberty in this country, and will consider voting for candidates who will put that in their platform.

 

Insights and incites by Notes ?

[milod]

Actually I have several concerns about "drugs."

 

First, you don't wanna know how difficult it was for me to get some antibiotics to cover potential problems while traveling overseas with problem teeth. You'd think I was after a machine gun instead of something to kill a bit of infection under a molar. Why? Concerns about creating more problems than would be solved in the long term.

 

Second, I've taken enough photos of dead and broken people for law enforcement at various sorts of "accident" sites that have me concerned about both alcohol and drugs of various sorts.

 

Third, "legalizing" various opiates may not be all that bad, nor perhaps some other relatively mild stuff, but that which impairs driving is "their fist on my nose." Legalization would mean one would get what one thinks one is getting at least, but then there are questions both of OD and driving impairment, psychedelics of various sorts and driving, and the reaction to "uppers" that bring paranoia if nothing else (I've watched friends with that, dating back to the early '60s.) Then there are the effects of "steroids" which also are drugs. Etc., etc., etc.

 

Finally, notice I didn't even mention "addiction."

 

So... I dunno. I don't feature "drugs" in general being legalized in the sense that alcohol is legal. I think the "pharmaceutical establishment" is as concerned about liability lawsuits as anything, especially since legalization could be a gold mine.

 

As for "rape," it ain't just females who are victims. A friend in law enforcement has suggested, by the way, that "rape" be removed as a crime and "kidnapping" and "assault with intent" be substituted since in most places they're both as great a penalty and both are easier to prove while geting away from "sex" overhead on witness stands on the part of the victim. There's a long argument makes excellent sense.

 

m

[TommyK]

How did he learn a lesson? He's dead' date=' and thus, didn't get a chance to learn anything.

[/quote']

 

Unfortunately HE didn't learn anything. Hopefully, those who come after him have. Don't expect to be able to poke the bear and not get eaten.

 

HE committed a couple illegal acts, at least one of which is a felony. Sneaking into this country illegally, resisting arrest and assault and battery of a law enforcer, attempted murder of a law enforcement officer.

 

I feel bad for the kid because he was young, impressionable and given bad advice which caused him to lose his life. I feel worse for the border guard who had to take him down. He has to live with that memory the rest of his life. Hopefully, the talking heads will give him well deserved space and privacy.

 

For those who decry the event as an unfair use of force, most of whom are protesting south of the border, I wish they'd just shut up.

 

True, the young man in question chose a low powered weapon, but rocks can and have been used to kill for .... well for all of human history, at least as far back as Cain and Able. To expect a law enforcement officer to temper his response to a deadly attack, based upon his opponent's fire power, is unconscionable, not to mention dangerous. If he were required to measure his response, then every time he got into a gun fight, he would be required to say, "Hey! Perp! What caliber of weapon are you using?" Should the perp reply, ".22 pistol." If the police officer had a .38, he'd be required to respond, "Hold on a minute, I've got you out gunned. Wait right there while I go back to the police station a requisition a .22. Do me the favor of not shooting me while I return to my car." Or, the police would have to arm themselves with the least powerful weapon they may encounter while out on the beat. In this case, a rock. Do you see how ridiculous that is?

 

In the final analysis, had the the unfortunate young man kept running and not attacked the border guard, he would probably be mowing someone's lawn this afternoon for a less than minimum wage, albeit alive.

[TommyK]

Legallizing currently illegal drugs is NOT a victimless crime. I've seen what 'recreational' usage does to families. Alcoholism is bad enough, but multiply the drug that times ten when one or more parents in a family is a drug user. Loss of family money, loss of employment (not always due to popping positive on a drug test), infidelity, destruction of the nuclear famiy, child abuse and neglect....

 

Drunk driving is hard enough to police without adding psychotic drugs to the fray.

 

Same with the other vices. If you let prostitution run rampant, it degrades the neighborhood and all of society.

 

Even the Netherlands, who turns a blind eye to drug use, as long is it is relegated to certain areas, is becoming fed-up with all the problems that come with permitting the unlawful use of psychotic drugs. They are currently rethinking their permissiveness of recreational use.

[grampa]

Legalizing cannibas won't cause an increase in use. Use is already widespread. Prohibition didn't cut down on alcohol consumption and when it ended the only change was that it was no longer illegal. Those who smoke pot will continue and those who don't won't start because it's legal. And the tax revenue won't hurt.

[jimmiJAMM]

It should ABSOLUTELY be legalized and taxed. It's will bring in millions of dollars into the economy, ease over crowded jails and cut down on crime saving countless lives in the process. Some will choose to smoke it, some won't... like alcohol, just cause it's legal doesn't mean everyone in America is abusing the stuff. A little personal responsibility is par for the course.

 

Speaking of par, next week, US Open at Pebble Beach!!!

[Notes_Norton]

<...>Third' date=' "legalizing" various opiates may not be all that bad, nor perhaps some other relatively mild stuff, but that which impairs driving is "their fist on my nose." [/quote']

 

Exactly, which is why there needs to be strict laws against it.

 

BTW, my insurance company says driving while talking on a cell phone is as dangerous as driving drunk. The accident statistics are so close that one can't be considered safer than the other. So why should cell phone driving be legal? The cell phone driver is "in my nose".

 

<...>Finally' date=' notice I didn't even mention "addiction."

<...>[/quote']

 

Addiction is fine with me and a person has a right to be addicted if he/she wants to be.

 

The most addictive abused drug in the US is Television.

 

Television I say?

 

It fits the profile.

 

1) Most people in the US watch between 5 and 6 hours per day.

 

2) The drug needs to be escalated to keep its affect. We went from "Leave It To Beaver" to "Sex In The City"

 

3) The TV watcher definitely exhibits withdrawal symptoms. Take a person off TV completely, "cold turkey" and watch the personality changes

 

4) The TV user cannot distinguish between the drug induced fantasy and reality. An actor/actress that plays an evil person on TV cannot go to the grocery store without people shouting insults at him/her as if he/she is the character he/she is portraying on TV

 

Addictive TV is legal

 

I know plenty of people who drink alcohol every day, and it's legal

 

Cigarette addiction is legal

 

I've seen bumper stickers, "Addicted to sports, not drugs" - what's the difference, sports are just as dangerous. I know a person who was playing softball, the ball took a bad hop and he has lost the use of one of the fingers on his right hand. The doctor says it eventually will have to be amputated. How many adults have an impairment because of a sports injury that happened when they were young? Plenty

 

Now I'm not addicted to drugs (don't do them at all except for a couple of glasses of wine per year), sports, TV or cigarettes, but I am addicted to music. I gave up a promising career as an electronics engineer to play music for a living.

 

I don't approve of many people's addictions, but it's their business, not mine.

 

Probably the worst thing about the drug laws, trying to protect people from themselves, is

 

1) the illegality of the drugs creates a drug underworld and the violence it fosters

 

2) the high price of the contraband causes addicts who could otherwise afford the 3 martini lunch to rob and steal from innocent people to get their drug money

 

3) Trillions of tax dollars have been wasted on a war that cannot be won, and I don't think it has saved one drug addict from ruining his/her life

 

And Tommy, yes drugs can destroy a family. So can gambling, excessive eating, lazyness, layoffs by outsourcing jobs, TV addiction, sports-induced violence (super-bowl day is a banner day for battered wives), other violence, and a drug addict that has to rob to support the price of his/her habit due to the fact that illegal goods simply cost more than he/she can afford.

 

Liberty means you can't protect people from themselves. But I want to be protected from them. The perp who goes on a burglary spree to support his/her expensive habit hurts others and can also rune a family. Oops, the owner is home, I'm nervous, I have a gun... ... ...

 

Tell me that won't destroy a family.

 

If it were legal, it would be affordable. I suggest that the fact that the drugs are illegal is worse for society than the fact that they are not.

 

And DUI crimes should all be accompanied by a jail sentence. After all, if the drugs were legal, the jails would be mostly empty. Make that driving under the influence of a cell phone too. It's just as dangerous.

 

I've read where people read, text, shave and do other weird things while driving. That's DUI too.

 

And if half the tax money went to factual education, I think there would be fewer druggies than there are today. And there would be no need for a pusher either.

 

And the mere fact that drugs are illegal makes them exciting to a portion of society.

 

One more thing. In my hippie days, I smoked some pot and snorted some coke. I think everybody my age or younger has done that. If a person was driving a car towards me on a two lane highway, I'd much rather he/she be under the influence of pot or coke than alcohol. Pot smokers drive more conservatively, and coke is a mild speed so it enhances reaction time, drunks swerve all over the road and have notoriously slow reaction time.

 

Once more, I'm not advocating drug use, I don't do them and haven't for decades, but I think we are going about controlling it the wrong way.

 

Notes ?

[jaxson50]

The only winners in the Drug War are the lawyers....and their drug dealing clients, the ones at the top..The best way to bring down drug cartels is to do away with their profit.

The same reason we repealed the 18th Amendment....by making booze illegal we empowered the underworld gangs and they became rich, and they had bloody turf wars that resulted in the deaths of innocent bystanders.

Is that scenario any different than what we see today?

So there seems to be two ways we could do better;

1. Legalize it so we can control and profit from it.

or

2. Buy it from the Cartels and burn it....

[milod]

Well...

 

As I mentioned in my first comment on this, one must consider that even a relatively "mild" antibiotic requires going through all kinds of hoops to get. Physician, pharmacist...

 

Why? Because of potential "dangers" even though I'm quite aware of using too mild a batch for an tooth infection which isn't very likely any more. <grin>

 

Drugs... The illegal ones bother me a lot because you're not sure what you're getting. Period.

 

Legalizing them? I dunno. Do we let the FDA play with dosages and require physicians to prescribe them? I dunno. Which ones should be legal? How will you figure how cops can do an easy test to determine dosages in use by a driver?

 

Don't get me wrong on this one either, Notes makes excellent points. And in ways I really don't care what somebody else does as long as it doesn't break my nose. But will penicillin be included? Meth? How does one figure doses on certain mushrooms? Would heroin lacing be allowed for marijuana? How about combining ups and downs like Elvis? Or meth and LSD? Yeah people do it, or have done it, but...

 

Let's put it this way, I'm not necessarily philosophically opposed, but I can see a real can o' worms too.

 

m

[jaxson50]

Well...

 

As I mentioned in my first comment on this' date=' one must consider that even a relatively "mild" antibiotic requires going through all kinds of hoops to get. Physician, pharmacist...

 

Why? Because of potential "dangers" even though I'm quite aware of using too mild a batch for an tooth infection which isn't very likely any more. <grin>

 

Drugs... The illegal ones bother me a lot because you're not sure what you're getting. Period.

 

Legalizing them? I dunno. Do we let the FDA play with dosages and require physicians to prescribe them? I dunno. Which ones should be legal? How will you figure how cops can do an easy test to determine dosages in use by a driver?

 

Don't get me wrong on this one either, Notes makes excellent points. And in ways I really don't care what somebody else does as long as it doesn't break my nose. But will penicillin be included? Meth? How does one figure doses on certain mushrooms? Would heroin lacing be allowed for marijuana? How about combining ups and downs like Elvis? Or meth and LSD? Yeah people do it, or have done it, but...

 

Let's put it this way, I'm not necessarily philosophically opposed, but I can see a real can o' worms too.

 

m

[/quote']

 

Meth is pure evil...no doubt about it...but in regards to the "drug war"...this is the longest war we have ever been in, I see no evidence that we are gaining ground. The death toll in Mexico is sky rocketing...billions of dollars leave our nation every year and go to the drug cartels..add to that the billions we spend conducting the drug war and the cost of keeping these punks in prison. This is a larger drain on our nation than any war. How much longer will we be able to pay for this?

I guess I look at it this way, I'd rather spend that money on our schools than on our prisons.

Why not just buy the stuff and burn it? That would at least keep it off the street's, the dealers don't care who buys it...they just want to sell it...wouldn't we save money in the long run?

[Californiaman]

And it just gets worse off for the people of Mexico.

55 were found dead earlier this month in an abandon silver mine.

Today, 19 gunned down at a rehab clinic.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/11/ap/latinamerica/main6572962.shtml

[milod]

Jax et cali...

 

I dunno. My problem with "legalization" across the board is as I noted in my earlier post. What will be included, how will "under the influence" be determined in as practical a manner as with booze, and how will the stuff be sold.

 

Mary Jane legalized - yeah, I know Cruzn grows it and were I into the stuff, I'd feel comfortable buying from him knowing what I was getting. But until there's a better test to know all that you're getting is legal marijuana, I'd still fear some folks adding a lot more than "taste enhancement" as they have done for years.

 

Again, philosophically, I have difficulty arguing against the "failure" of the war on drugs. I've suggested to an occasional friend that the only way to really get rid of drug use is the old "Soviet" sort of response of a 9 mm to the back of the head if certain drugs were found in an individual's system. Yeah, that's a "crazy" response, but think about it. I just watched a young woman addicted to "prescription drugs" confess to breaking into people's homes because of what was in her head under the influence. No thanks.

 

Few if anyone has come up with a practical mode of distribution were we to legalize opiates and various powerful "uppers" that in ongoing doses create functionally the same problems as pharmaceutical grade meth.

 

Lao Tzu noted that those who go against "the way" are self destructive. Yup. And I'm not sure what I think of that type of suicide. But to keep a "user" from killing me on the highway, I'd like to know there are at minimum the degree of precautions and checking of product one finds with alcohol.

 

Oh - and what about antibiotics?

 

m