• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the US follow International Law when fighting drug trafficking?

Should the US follow International Law when defending the US from drug trafficking?

  • Total voters
    18
  • This poll will close: .
Individual said:
Relevance to my post?

As for what we are witnessing, any vessels within 12 nautical miles of the U.S. believed to be transporting drugs or any other illegal cargo into the U.S. should be subject to inspection by the Coast guard. In international waters our military should, IMO, at most track the vessel and relay location data for the Coast guard to intercept if/when it enters U.S. territorial waters.
Click to expand...
These boars are well over 1000 miles away from the US and would not even REMOTELY be able to reach the US without stopping numerous times for fuel in between.

They weren’t heading here.
 
For gangs/cartels and narco-state the Foreign Terrorist Organization ( FTO designation) allows a"kinetic military response"
(Obama and Trump both used this phrase) . Conditional vote for following maritime law when interdicting non-designated drug smugglers.
 
Gatsby said:
If the government is going to blow up random boats on the flimsiest pretext of drug trafficking, is it too much to ask that they at least get their story straight and reassure that they are actually targeting drug traffickers?

Click to expand...

The VP of the United States - after our country has unalived how many people - says “I wouldn’t go fishing in that part of the world” as if it’s a joke.


Tell me again how it’s not ok to joke about people’s deaths, etc?

Respect for life, all God’s creatures, blahblahblah…Christian.


“Wouldn’t go fishing”…hahaha…after we blew up more than a dozen people.


The US government is a god damned monster currently. That sentence will be in a history book somewhere.
 
Would rather they disable the boat, recover whatever is on board, and interrogate the occupants. Granted it's more dangerous, but isn't that what the coast guard does?
 
BirdinHand said:
These boars are well over 1000 miles away from the US and would not even REMOTELY be able to reach the US without stopping numerous times for fuel in between.

They weren’t heading here.
Click to expand...
Don't know where they were heading, but do you disagree with what I've posted?
 
Taylor said:
We don't need to legalize it for you to use it in your own home. Nobody will come knocking.
Click to expand...
We need to legalize it so that THE PEOPLE SELLING IT TO HIM don't come knocking, or drive-by shooting, in neighborhoods around the U.S.

IF you support "War on Drugs", then you really at least need to see that prohibiting the supply side while leaving the demand side alone is a tactic meant to drive up drug prices and put profit into the hands of the mafias.
 
It seems very plausible that the Venezuelan military could send out a boat to observe the Americans, and the U.S. bombs it because supposedly it is a drug boat.
 
Taylor said:
We don't need to legalize it for you to use it in your own home. Nobody will come knocking.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how it was during alcohol prohibition. The volstead act did not outlaw possession, just sale, transportation, and manufacturing.

Banning the sale of drugs people actually want is just mommy-state puritanism.
 
aociswundumho said:
If you legalize all drugs this whole issue goes away overnight.
Click to expand...

Legalizing drugs would solve the problem of our government accusing people of terrorism without evidence and killing them with impunity and no recourse?
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Legalizing drugs would solve the problem of our government accusing people of terrorism without evidence and killing them with impunity and no recourse?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't eliminate it, but it would reduce it. More importantly, it would drastically cut down the number of lives the US government ruins at both the state and federal level when it imprisons people for the "crime" of putting what they want into their own body. It would also shrink street violence. And it would cut overdoses by removing the guessing game over purity.
 
Yes, for one, very simple reason: when someone blows up an US civilian boat.

If we feel that we can attack anything and anyone and say to hell with international law, then anyone can do it to us and we don't get to bitch about it.

It's kind of like due process here for non-US citizens...if we expect due process for our citizens in other nations according to their laws, then we have to provide our version of it here in the US.
 
anatta said:
For gangs/cartels and narco-state the Foreign Terrorist Organization ( FTO designation) allows a"kinetic military response"
(Obama and Trump both used this phrase) . Conditional vote for following maritime law when interdicting non-designated drug smugglers.
Click to expand...

Which IMO is exactly how the Federal government should deal with these smugglers. They are typically given the chance to "pull-over" and stop to be searched and they simply ignore the lawful order to do so. After repeated warnings to stop or be destroyed, they can choose option A or option B.

I'm all for this. Innocent boaters will pull over. So, will criminals if they want to survive the encounter. In the latter case they can continue to flee and face the consequences.
 
bythoughts said:
It seems very plausible that the Venezuelan military could send out a boat to observe the Americans, and the U.S. bombs it because supposedly it is a drug boat.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. As long as such a "military boat" stays out of U.S. coastal waters, and does not interfere with interdiction/capture of smugglers seeking to land in the U.S., they have nothing to worry about.
 
bythoughts said:
We need to legalize it so that THE PEOPLE SELLING IT TO HIM don't come knocking, or drive-by shooting, in neighborhoods around the U.S.
Click to expand...
They'll instead come knocking, break into cars, and rob people at gunpoint to get what they need from them to support their drug habit.

bythoughts said:
IF you support "War on Drugs", then you really at least need to see that prohibiting the supply side while leaving the demand side alone is a tactic meant to drive up drug prices and put profit into the hands of the mafias.
Click to expand...
I'm all for reducing demand. Legalizing it increases demand. Don't see how that's good for society.
 
Taylor said:
They'll instead come knocking, break into cars, and rob people at gunpoint to get what they need from them to support their drug habit.
Click to expand...
There's no reason why drugs should be expensive. Flowers, chemicals ... these things are generally cheap.
Taylor said:
I'm all for reducing demand. Legalizing it increases demand. Don't see how that's good for society.
Click to expand...
The statistic I've seen was that legalizing cannabis was associated with a shift from 14% of the population using it to 15%. But I don't know it wouldn't have gone up anyway. Meanwhile, governments are complaining that 40% of cannabis tax revenue is "cannibalized" from revenue for alcohol and tobacco -- which are more dangerous drugs. 15% less alcohol sold, 5% less cigarettes.

Now to be sure, I don't favor drug legalization merely because of some statistics. I favor it because I love freedom and hate goons. Now with freedom comes responsibilities - including educating people about addictive drugs, and treating addiction. But those responsibilities are lighter burdens than the wages of tyranny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom