Gun loving Americans are needed

[Billski]

Gun loving Americans are needed to help the Mexican army in its war on drug lords. The following shows how serious the problem is in Mexico.

http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/its-a-war

In 1848 volunteers from the United States went to the assistance of Texas in getting free from Mexico. Now Americans can assist Mexico in getting free from drug lords.

 

[ClubmanRob]

I never received the invitation.

 

[Kratos]

The war on drugs is going to always be a losing battle until people have enough sense not to use them. With no demand there would be no point in having a supply. And legalization is not the answer.

 

[Anocer]

A rather enlightening study on drug decriminalization in Portugal and how it is considered, by virtually every metric, to be a resounding success.

 

[Kratos]

Portugal's got what, 11 million people? We have cities larger than that. Meth isn't quite the problem in Europe it is here. And it wasn't legalized, it was decriminalized; there's a difference. One of the most problematic drugs in the US is alcohol, and it's legal.
Cocaine and meth addicts are still not going to have jobs, and they are still going to rob citizens, break into their houses, and vehicles to get money for a fix. When you see newborn babies getting IV's for methadone and other rehabilitation drugs see if you still feel the same.

 

[AdrianR]

... Cocaine and meth addicts are still not going to have jobs, and they are still going to rob citizens, break into their houses, and vehicles to get money for a fix...

I would tend to disagree with this. I honestly believe that if the drugs were purity controlled and cheap enough then there would be a Darwinian effect - just as there is with alcohol - which would lead to the most stupid, the most dependent and the most unself-controlled being weeded out.

Add to this various welfare reforms to prevent sitting on one's *** being a viable lifestyle option then perhaps some progress may be made.

Just my 2c...

 

[Kratos]

I would tend to disagree with this. I honestly believe that if the drugs were purity controlled and cheap enough then there would be a Darwinian effect - just as there is with alcohol - which would lead to the most stupid, the most dependent and the most unself-controlled being weeded out.

Add to this various welfare reforms to prevent sitting on one's *** being a viable lifestyle option then perhaps some progress may be made.

Just my 2c...

What you say has merit. I am right there with you on welfare reform, but I'm not holding my breath. I see so many 20 year olds on "disability." Oh, so being fat and lazy is a disability? I wonder if I can get on for being "too fit."
On purity, you do realize what meth is composed of, right? Lithium, starting fluid, annhydrous ammonia...there's no way to purify that garbage. Purity isn't the problem. It's what the products themselves do to people.
And as far as getting weeded out, they are going to take innocents with them, just like drunks tend to do.

 

[Brodirt]

I read an interesting article on the topic of legalization of marijuana in the Sunday NY Times 2 weeks ago. The author was a long time advocate for legalization, the director of the county's largest legit organization fighting for legalization. He admits to having been a long time smoker who gave it up in his 40s as his maturity, professional and familial responsibilities took over. He basically presents a libertarian viewpoint on the topic, and as I libertarian myself, I can fairly agree with it.

He then introduces a recent acquaintance of his who he describes as more than his contemporary, but someone who, circumstances aside, could be him.

This gentleman, though, lost a young son to the downward spiral of addiction.

The author came to an amazing conclusion in the article (for the NY Times that is)...he agreed with the anti-legalization position and cited one overwhelming proposition:

For years he, and most other legalization advocates, cite as gospel the argument that not every pot user becomes a hard drug user. His new acquaintance, however, taught him that every meth and heroine addict started with pot.

I thought it was a spectacularly honest bearing of one's soul, especially in light of the author's job.

I'm a libertarian, but that one argument is damn convincing.

 

[Shane]

A lot of the problem with drugs is perception. Drugs don't discriminate, they don't stay in the trailer parks or the ghetto, they are everywhere. Drugs can buy and sell people by the thousands, whether they wear burlap bags or 10,000 dollar suits, and that's just the way it is. People will talk about what works to solve the problem, but the fact is it's not a problem, it's a way of life. People smoke weed, people shoot heroin, people snort coke. Is it any better than drinking yourself into a stupor? No, but it also isn't any worse. All of the laws and regulations in the world won't ever get rid of drugs, and that's just something that we'll all have to live with.

 

[BarryR]

For years he, and most other legalization advocates, cite as gospel the argument that not every pot user becomes a hard drug user. His new acquaintance, however, taught him that every meth and heroine addict started with pot.

As George Carlin pointed out, they also started out on Mother's Milk. The use of pot in high school and college is very high, so it would actually be odd if a heroin addict hadn't started out with pot. It's not remotely proof that it led to harder drugs.

 

[Brodirt]

As George Carlin pointed out, they also started out on Mother's Milk. The use of pot in high school and college is very high, so it would actually be odd if a heroin addict hadn't started out with pot. It's not remotely proof that it led to harder drugs.

No, but when does correlation ever equal causation...especially when you are predisposed to disagree with the outcome?

 

[jazzman]

A lot of the problem with drugs is perception. Drugs don't discriminate, they don't stay in the trailer parks or the ghetto, they are everywhere. Drugs can buy and sell people by the thousands, whether they wear burlap bags or 10,000 dollar suits, and that's just the way it is. People will talk about what works to solve the problem, but the fact is it's not a problem, it's a way of life. People smoke weed, people shoot heroin, people snort coke. Is it any better than drinking yourself into a stupor? No, but it also isn't any worse. All of the laws and regulations in the world won't ever get rid of drugs, and that's just something that we'll all have to live with.

The big secret of the drug problem is that middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy people use hard drugs. Without them, there would not be enough of a market to keep the inner city purveyors in business. There are plenty of heroin addicts with steady jobs. Many of them don't get so high that they can't function most of the time; they use enough to avoid withdrawal symptoms. But many of them are ruining their lives for two reasons. First, they get high enough often enough to be a nuisance or worse. Second, they need large quantities of money to buy an illegal substance. Legalization would at least help solve the second problem.

 

[1OldGI]

I've had a thought on immigration reform for some time. Here's how it goes. We independently and without the knowledge of anyone in the media contact 5 Mexican Army Generals and propose the following.

1. $2 million dollars will be placed in an account for each general. This money will be accessible to the Generals 12 months from the initial deposit

2. Each general will be assigned a stretch of the border to seal.

3. For every illegal alien that gets through, a $20,000 deduction will post to the intial account.

4. At the end of the year, the generals will be able to withdraw the intial $2 million dollars (minus penalties) and a fresh $2 Million will be loaded.

The total cost of this program would be $10 million a year (some of which we will almost certainly get back in penalties.

My other idea is a 1/2 mile buffer zone from the Mexican border north (on the US side) with motion detectors, land mines, etc. We really do need to seal this border but I don't see it happening any time soon.

 

[Brodirt]

I've had a thought on immigration reform for some time. Here's how it goes. We independently and without the knowledge of anyone in the media contact 5 Mexican Army Generals and propose the following.

1. $2 million dollars will be placed in an account for each general. This money will be accessible to the Generals 12 months from the initial deposit

2. Each general will be assigned a stretch of the border to seal.

3. For every illegal alien that gets through, a $20,000 deduction will post to the intial account.

4. At the end of the year, the generals will be able to withdraw the intial $2 million dollars (minus penalties) and a fresh $2 Million will be loaded.

The total cost of this program would be $10 million a year (some of which we will almost certainly get back in penalties.

My other idea is a 1/2 mile buffer zone from the Mexican border north (on the US side) with motion detectors, land mines, etc. We really do need to seal this border but I don't see it happening any time soon.

There you go jumping the political shark. Impending thread death in 5-4-3-2 posts.

 

[professorchaos]

The big secret of the drug problem is that middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy people use hard drugs. Without them, there would not be enough of a market to keep the inner city purveyors in business. There are plenty of heroin addicts with steady jobs. Many of them don't get so high that they can't function most of the time; they use enough to avoid withdrawal symptoms. But many of them are ruining their lives for two reasons. First, they get high enough often enough to be a nuisance or worse. Second, they need large quantities of money to buy an illegal substance. Legalization would at least help solve the second problem.

Jazzman, it seems to have taken a long time for us to share an opinion. That doesn't change the fact that I agree with you wholeheartedly. Not only because drug laws turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals; nor just because the war on drugs been an utter failure. It is simply none of the government's business what a person ingests. People want to do drugs and some of them even enjoy them. The horror.

 

[Brodirt]

J Not only because drug laws turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals;

Don't detract from your otherwise good points with this strawman.

 

[BarryR]

No, but when does correlation ever equal causation...especially when you are predisposed to disagree with the outcome?

Exactly, correlation doesn't equal causation. So, should I just believe the guy you mention in the NYT article?

Another way to look at it is what percent of people who have smoked a non-trivial amount of pot (which I'd think would be over 50% for baby-boomers and younger folk) have had substance abuse problems with harder drugs? I'd guess it's pretty low.

There's no way we're going to settle this, but there's no data to support the idea that pot leads to harder drugs and intuitively, it makes little sense to me.

 

[Brodirt]

Exactly, correlation doesn't equal causation. So, should I just believe the guy you mention in the NYT article?

Another way to look at it is what percent of people who have smoked a non-trivial amount of pot (which I'd think would be over 50% for baby-boomers and younger folk) have had substance abuse problems with harder drugs? I'd guess it's pretty low.

There's no way we're going to settle this, but there's no data to support the idea that pot leads to harder drugs and intuitively, it makes little sense to me.

Are you concluding then that the hard addicts are predisposed to their fate? If so the isn't it fair to say that it's harder to introduce yourself into an illegal activity at the more extreme levels...any activity for that matter. Look at most hardened criminals and you will find along wrap sheet of petty and subsequently lesser petty crimes. Sure, their are the outliers, the Dahmers for example, who jump in feet first, but thats as rare in crime as it is in drug use.

Believe what you want, all I said is that its a damn fair and compelling line of logic.

 

[BarryR]

Are you concluding then that the hard addicts are predisposed to their fate? If so the isn't it fair to say that it's harder to introduce yourself into an illegal activity at the more extreme levels...any activity for that matter. Look at most hardened criminals and you will find along wrap sheet of petty and subsequently lesser petty crimes. Sure, their are the outliers, the Dahmers for example, who jump in feet first, but thats as rare in crime as it is in drug use.

Believe what you want, all I said is that its a damn fair and compelling line of logic.

Actually, I think there are people prone to substance abuse disorders in general, though often to some substances more than others. I don't think they're predisposed to their fate, but I do think it's much harder for some to not abuse a substance.

If the issue is being introduced to a 'low level' illegal activity, then that effect should be gone if the substance were legal (or decriminalized).

 

[Proinsias]

I think the big gateway drugs are alcohol and nicotine, I don't know many people who have been/are on hard drugs but they all started on nicotine & alcohol.

The only common trend I've personally noticed is that smoking pot tends to lead to nicotine addiction at some point, but this may be a UK thing.