What are you trying to say?Yes, absolutely. Legalize heroin also to put Taliban right out of business.
Not to mention ending the war on civil liberties here, and the massive social destruction that comes with making private tragedies a social one.
Camille Paglia excoriated the baby boom generation one time for their craven cowardice in not just maintaining the war on drugs but escalating it. Here here.
I'm watching "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on CNN and Mexico's President Felipe Calderon is calling for the U.S. to start legalizing drugs to stop the drug violence in Mexico. He says that the U.S. is the highest consumer in the world of illegal drugs, so U.S. demand dictates the prices for Mexican drug suppliers. So if the U.S. started legalizing drugs, Mexican drug violence would decrease and help bring back order.
So my question is this: if U.S. consumption of illegal drugs is causing problems in Mexico, does the United States have the responsibility to legalize or decriminalize drugs so that Mexico loses it's black market as a drug supplier which will reduce drug violence in Mexico?
Right. All those thousands of criminals would go straight and become model citizens. In reality they would just adapt, increasing other crimes such as extortion, kidnapping, theft. Organized crime does not go away when laws are changed. They just engage in different crimes. The violence could even become worse.
Securing our borders would go a long way to curtailing the Mexican drug trade, not to mention reducing ilegals.
But that doesn't answer the question: Do you believe the U.S. should legalize or decriminalize drugs to reduce drug violence in Mexico?
Right. All those thousands of criminals would go straight and become model citizens. In reality they would just adapt, increasing other crimes such as extortion, kidnapping, theft. Organized crime does not go away when laws are changed. They just engage in different crimes. The violence could even become worse.
Securing our borders would go a long way to curtailing the Mexican drug trade, not to mention reducing ilegals.
Pot should be legalized. Addictive drugs like Heroin, crack and Meth should not.
Like I said, I doubt if changing laws will reduce the violence. Those thugs aren't going anywhere and will just switch to something else.
Securing our borders should be the number one priority. If they can get a truckload of drugs in, they can get WMDs in. If the traffickers can not get their drugs across the border the drugs are worthless. We do have the technology and resources to close our borders, just not the determination.
Pot should be legalized. Addictive drugs like Heroin, crack and Meth should not.
Like I said, I doubt if changing laws will reduce the violence. Those thugs aren't going anywhere and will just switch to something else.
Securing our borders should be the number one priority. If they can get a truckload of drugs in, they can get WMDs in. If the traffickers can not get their drugs across the border the drugs are worthless. We do have the technology and resources to close our borders, just not the determination.
I'm watching "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on CNN and Mexico's President Felipe Calderon is calling for the U.S. to start legalizing drugs to stop the drug violence in Mexico. He says that the U.S. is the highest consumer in the world of illegal drugs, so U.S. demand dictates the prices for Mexican drug suppliers. So if the U.S. started legalizing drugs, Mexican drug violence would decrease and help bring back order.
So my question is this: if U.S. consumption of illegal drugs is causing problems in Mexico, does the United States have the responsibility to legalize or decriminalize drugs so that Mexico loses it's black market as a drug supplier which will reduce drug violence in Mexico?
No, fuck Mexico. If we do anything for anyone's benefit it should be for our own. Legalizing drugs for the sake of Mexico makes as much sense as banning socialized healthcare so that illegal aliens can't get it.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigration/68780-viva-pre-existing-conditions.html
No, fuck Mexico. If we do anything for anyone's benefit it should be for our own. Legalizing drugs for the sake of Mexico makes as much sense as banning socialized healthcare so that illegal aliens can't get it.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/immigration/68780-viva-pre-existing-conditions.html
I'm watching "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on CNN and Mexico's President Felipe Calderon is calling for the U.S. to start legalizing drugs to stop the drug violence in Mexico. He says that the U.S. is the highest consumer in the world of illegal drugs, so U.S. demand dictates the prices for Mexican drug suppliers. So if the U.S. started legalizing drugs, Mexican drug violence would decrease and help bring back order.
So my question is this: if U.S. consumption of illegal drugs is causing problems in Mexico, does the United States have the responsibility to legalize or decriminalize drugs so that Mexico loses it's black market as a drug supplier which will reduce drug violence in Mexico?
Right. All those thousands of criminals would go straight and become model citizens. In reality they would just adapt, increasing other crimes such as extortion, kidnapping, theft. Organized crime does not go away when laws are changed. They just engage in different crimes. The violence could even become worse.
Securing our borders would go a long way to curtailing the Mexican drug trade, not to mention reducing ilegals.
Yeah well, it's hardly in the US's interest for Mexico to fall into anarchy characterized by violence orchestrated by competing drug trade warlords.
We can debate about how likely that extreme outcome, but for discussion's sake lets stipulate that it is correct. Are you so wedded to the putative "benefits" of prohibition that this is a price you'd be willing to pay?
Does Marijuana and other drugs stop becoming profitable just because there legal?
Alcohol is more ingrained into our culture than weed,meth and other drugs.And, exactly, what proof do we have of this.
Remember the prohibition era?.
I maintain that unenforceable laws create the criminals in the first place. When the activity becomes legal, then the criminals become "law abiding citizens".
Rather strange..
I also hold that no rational man wishes to become a criminal.
Drugs stop being profitable for criminal organizations who make their money smuggling and distributing illegal drugs, when those drugs are legal.
And, exactly, what proof do we have of this.
Remember the prohibition era?.
I maintain that unenforceable laws create the criminals in the first place. When the activity becomes legal, then the criminals become "law abiding citizens".
Rather strange..
I also hold that no rational man wishes to become a criminal..
Again Mexico is totally irrelevant in how we make our laws. If the gangs, cartels and military in Mexico start acting up then we eventually public outcry will demand that we stick the US military on the border and tell them to shoot at anything that does not go through a check point at the border(which is something that should have already been done).
And to you that would be a preferable outcome to giving up the putative domestic "benefits" of prohibition?
I know, we're talking about two things here - drug policy, and whether the US should make policy for its own benefit or for that of other countries. Obviously for its own benefit. Equally obvious, what happens in other countries - especially ones with which we share a lengthy border - affects our well being also.
That concept can be abused - "we're all part of a kumbaya global village" - but concern about anarchy in Mexico is hardly that.
Whats the price of marijuana in California and other states with legalized medicinal marijuana?
It varies depending on the quality. It is less than the street price, even with tax added.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?