The **** War Escalates
- Thread starter maildude
- Start date
According to experts and scholars, prohibition is the problem and not the solution
^ That valdidates the fact that the trillions of dollars of taxpayers money ****** to wage a war on ***** for a few decades has been an epic failure
The Grasshopper
was here
It amazes me that despite BLATANT evidence in the form of "Prohibition of ******* in the United States and the rise of violent, organized crime" - people still have a knee-jerk reaction to "*****".
People, each and EVERYONE of us "consumes" *****. Stop trying to hide behind your shield of "well these are legal and those are not!" That's just semantic bull crap and you know it (the number ONE problem in the US today is ************ **** *****. Not Heroin, Not Pot, Not ******* ... "************ *****".)
You CANNOT legislate "morality".
How many more people and how many more rights have to "die" before YOU (yes! You there by the bike shed!) stop VOTING in IDIOTS who promise "tough on **** crime" stupidity?!!
You'd have better success by criminalizing "**** induced/influenced behavior which lead to a crime". (the bolded part is important but I'd rather not elaborate if no one is interested).
cheers,
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
That's all very true. While I'm in favor of legalizing most (now) ******* *****, I realize that simply repealing the current **** laws wouldn't fix everything.
What's odd to me is that so many people assume that if you're for legalization of most ***** (especially pot), you must be a pothead at the very least. I tried it in college and didn't like it. I didn't like the feeling it gave me. But I don't feel like it's any of my business if someone else wants to smoke a joint or have a ****, some wine or a mixed drink.
IMO, legalize it, regulate it and tax it... just like ******* and tobacco. That won't turn the world into a sweet & easy place overnight. But that would take SOME of the profit out of it for the cartels, smugglers and dealers.
All we've done up to this point is lock up millions of people and waste billions of dollars. And as much as I make fun of Sarah Palin, even she (an evangelical type) has supported legalization to some degree. She might not even fully understand the issue (what's new?), and was just latching onto a long held position of Ron Paul. But at least she said something semi-intelligent that I can agree with.
I crossed into Mexico last night. Decided to go to Reynosa instead of Matamoros where the big shot got ****** where I figured it was going to be more dangerous. It was eerily quiet for a saturday night. One of the most popular strip joints was almost empty and only three cars in the parking lot, one of them mine. A street that is famous for having a lot of taco stands was very quiet, just a few customers and some places didn't have any. I drove by the most popular night club near the border (not a strip joint but a dance place) and there was no people outside when back a few weeks ago they had a long line of people waiting to go in and some hanging out outside, and it was around midnight.
But all this ******** is fueled by money from U.S. potheads. Okay, you potheads want to legalize it, that's fine. But right now that is ******* you all are paying for all this ******** you complain about. So make a pledge then. No buying or smoking pot or any ***** until it's legalized. That will **** two birds with one stone 1) you cut off money to the cartels so they'll have to fight the Mexican army with sticks and stones and 2) you prove that marihuana is not addictive. Any takers? At least one?
But all this ******** is fueled by money from U.S. potheads. Okay, you potheads want to legalize it, that's fine. But right now that is ******* you all are paying for all this ******** you complain about. So make a pledge then. No buying or smoking pot or any ***** until it's legalized. That will **** two birds with one stone 1) you cut off money to the cartels so they'll have to fight the Mexican army with sticks and stones and 2) you prove that marihuana is not addictive. Any takers? At least one?
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
***** are bad. Mmmmkay?
The double standard on legal and ******* ***** is nonsense. It is inconsistent for those who support **** prohibition to consume legal ***** peddaled by pharmaceutical, tobacco and **** companies which are lethal, addictive and dangerous
*****=Money=Wars
it is simple supply and demand
current DEA policy attacks the supply side of the problem, so it raises prices making it more lucrative for the **** dealers
if they just switched how they spent the money (last time I checked it was 18 billion on enforcement and 300 million on prevention) and attacked the demand side of the problem, there would be no problem
it is amazing how simultaneously great and fucked up our country can be
current DEA policy attacks the supply side of the problem, so it raises prices making it more lucrative for the **** dealers
if they just switched how they spent the money (last time I checked it was 18 billion on enforcement and 300 million on prevention) and attacked the demand side of the problem, there would be no problem
it is amazing how simultaneously great and fucked up our country can be
That's when applied to the US. Mexico doesn't really have a problem with the ***** themselves, so much as the gangs that pedal them ruling the streets. Legalizing any of those ***** wouldn't do a single thing.
Spleen
******?
Not true. Mexico has the third largest level of reported ******* *****. USA being number one, of course, with New Zealand and Colombia not far behind.
Fair enough. What I meant specificially, is that legalizing anything won't accomplish anything. The primary problem for Mexico is reducing cartel power, much of which is supported by US dollars, and specifically focus on the cartel stranglehold on the streets.
Am I missing something? Doesn't the billions of dollars in ******* **** money enrich these cartels & give them enough power to raise small militias?
Wouldn't legalizing ***** itself reduce Cartel power ?:dunno:
Hasn't this been debated in theory & actually tested during the prohibition of ******* here in America?:dunno:
:*****: :*****:
Similar threads
