On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea?
You want to legalize some of the most addicting and destructive drugs known to the world? You must have a death wish for this country. Allowing people to get their hands on drugs like heroin will be a catastrophe.
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea?
You want to legalize some of the most addicting and destructive drugs known to the world? You must have a death wish for this country. Allowing people to get their hands on drugs like heroin will be a catastrophe.
People already do get their hands on them, and it is a catastrophe. That's the problem.
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea?
You want to legalize some of the most addicting and destructive drugs known to the world? You must have a death wish for this country. Allowing people to get their hands on drugs like heroin will be a catastrophe.
People already get their hands on them, the difference would be that the state would get the money, not the criminal drug cartels, and the government could make drug-programs to help people who are addicted etc.
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea?
You want to legalize some of the most addicting and destructive drugs known to the world? You must have a death wish for this country. Allowing people to get their hands on drugs like heroin will be a catastrophe.
People already do get their hands on them, and it is a catastrophe. That's the problem.
So allowing them to be purchased with little difficulty is better? You're eliminating "competition" at the cost of more access to these drugs.
I Thought that this might be relevant. As an outsider looking in, it baffles me that America is currently not looking at legalization models that have succeeded in the rest of the world. Just my 2c. Its obvious that the current system of dealing with drugs is not working and has not been working for a VERY long time. From my angle it looks like it is time to take on the status quo and take a risk on a new model.
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea?
You want to legalize some of the most addicting and destructive drugs known to the world? You must have a death wish for this country. Allowing people to get their hands on drugs like heroin will be a catastrophe.
People already do get their hands on them, and it is a catastrophe. That's the problem.
So allowing them to be purchased with little difficulty is better? You're eliminating "competition" at the cost of more access to these drugs.
In short, yes. It means that yes the drugs are still available, but the money is going to the government and not drug cartels. Hence you are able to start pouring money into fixing the problem you otherwise would not have. And it makes the the trade not profitable anymore. Put it this way, at the end of the day people are still going to get their hands on these drugs. Its less harmful if there is some kind of control system in place, at the very least. Its the first step to solving the problem.
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea?
You want to legalize some of the most addicting and destructive drugs known to the world? You must have a death wish for this country. Allowing people to get their hands on drugs like heroin will be a catastrophe.
People already do get their hands on them, and it is a catastrophe. That's the problem.
So allowing them to be purchased with little difficulty is better? You're eliminating "competition" at the cost of more access to these drugs.
Actually, even going so far as actively facilitating existing drug use in a controlled environment the case of heroin is empirically better as long as you consider a reduction in human suffering and death to be better.
America have TONS of guns and they're legal to own. mexico below has TONS of drugs and they're illegal, same with guns. i mean that's REALLY a bad mix. not to mention america produces so much ammunition too. Like he said in the vice video, they market for drugs is in america and the market for guns is in mexico.
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea?
You want to legalize some of the most addicting and destructive drugs known to the world? You must have a death wish for this country. Allowing people to get their hands on drugs like heroin will be a catastrophe.
please inform yourself about this topic, just look at countries who decriminalized drugs for personal use, and then look at what it did to them.
People who didnt bother informing themself yet call legalizing a "death wish for a country" are arguably part of why that problem exists in the first place...
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Doing something good like fighting communism, terrorists weapons of mass destruction? I wish I could read something like that and still take people seriously.
First of all, Mexico is an allied country of the US, not an enemy, as the countries associated with your claim were. Right away, your snide remark falls through. Continuing, the intent of that was never fighting communism, terrorists, or WMDs (the WMDs are a pure lie at that). The intent was imperialism. That other stuff was an excuse. However, there is some merit to the terrorism part in regards to Afghanistan.
If the intent of an incursion into Mexico was purely to remove the cartels without all the US corporate and political-instituted hegemony, as I specifically stated, it would be a very good cause, one practically unseen in history, since military conflict is almost always fought in the nation's own interest.
Let's not be ironic though. It took 75 years (since the official founding of Germany) and countless wars started and/or instigated by the Germans until war, destruction, and genocide, unseen in modern history, by Germany finally came to an end. This isn't even speaking on the various Germanic kingdoms before unification.
On March 17 2013 10:47 Arnstein wrote:
On March 17 2013 10:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea?
Theoretically, from the pot advocacy camp, would this happen. If it were true, action would have been taken long ago. Also, fyi, the cartels are based in Mexico, not the US. Even if it did affect their US operations by some margin, their operations in Mexico and everywhere else would be perfectly fine.
On March 17 2013 11:08 Jago wrote:
On March 17 2013 10:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
Attempts at overwhelming and killing off the cartels have been going on for what, 30 years now? How many more decades will it take for goverments to realize that it doesn't matter how many cartel members you kill and/or put in jail, because for as long as it is profitable new people will always step up.
Umm the overwhelming has been attempted by Mexico, the very country run by the cartels, meaning, nothing has been done. No action in Mexico has been taken by the US, and that's the kind of action that would make any sort of difference.
The only solution is a US force to annihilate the cartels and restore Mexican government to a position of stability and control such that any budding attempt at cartels are easily extinguished. Otherwise, Mexico is fucked for good.
That's a little insane. And to respond to your mid section, no. The cartels have something like 90% of their drugs going into the United States. This means that they would lose 90% of their business if it were legalized in the US. It doesn't matter where the business is based if the place you are selling isn't interested or has legal alternatives. You would functionally cut off their entire money supply.
And killing all of them is a stupid solution. Remember when the US dismantled the Medellin and Cali cartels? New cartels took their place. If there is a demand and there is money to be made someone is going to try to meet that demand and get rich.
THEIR drugs still come in. It just makes business a lot easier for them, which empowers them further. You're imagining that the cartels would suddenly lose out to someone else. No, they would adapt and keep their monopoly.
Killing them off is not a stupid solution. You don't defeat a problem by pulling out a couple weeds. That doesn't solve anything at all. Complete elimination is the resolution. Only by completely wiping them out in one fell swoop and restoring Mexican government can any future cartels be nipped right as they are budding. Taking out a couple while the rest thrive accomplishes nothing, since other cartels still exist to fill in the gap, or facilitate the growth of growing ones. That's why wrecking Medellin and Cali did nothing.
America can't afford that war. It'd get ugly fast, and there'd be a lot of dead soldiers equally as fast, and the war would become unpopular even faster. Not to mention that trying to get all of them would demand guerilla warfare on an unprecedented scale and be rife with the potential for civilian casualties, since the cartels are - obviously - entrenched in ordinary society.
Oh yeah, and there'd just be something new to replace them.
So long as people in America want drugs, there'll be someone in Mexico prepared to sell it to them.
The bodies of seven men, all shot in the head as if executed, were found dumped in plastic chairs placed along the side of a street in the Mexican state of Michoacan, authorities have said.
Michoacan's attorney general's office said in a statement on Saturday that the victims had all been shot in the head and placed individually in the sitting position in chairs near a traffic circle in the city of Uruapan.
A placard nailed to one of the bodies with an ice pick reads: "Warning! This will happen to thieves, kidnappers, sex offenders and extortionists".
The office did not provide a motive for the killings.
It comes after seven people were killed in neighbouring Guerrero state when armed men opened fire in a bar in Ciudad Altamirano on Friday evening.
Four civilians and three off-duty federal agents were among those killed.
The bodies of seven men, all shot in the head as if executed, were found dumped in plastic chairs placed along the side of a street in the Mexican state of Michoacan, authorities have said.
Michoacan's attorney general's office said in a statement on Saturday that the victims had all been shot in the head and placed individually in the sitting position in chairs near a traffic circle in the city of Uruapan.
A placard nailed to one of the bodies with an ice pick reads: "Warning! This will happen to thieves, kidnappers, sex offenders and extortionists".
The office did not provide a motive for the killings.
It comes after seven people were killed in neighbouring Guerrero state when armed men opened fire in a bar in Ciudad Altamirano on Friday evening.
Four civilians and three off-duty federal agents were among those killed.
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Doing something good like fighting communism, terrorists weapons of mass destruction? I wish I could read something like that and still take people seriously.
First of all, Mexico is an allied country of the US, not an enemy, as the countries associated with your claim were. Right away, your snide remark falls through. Continuing, the intent of that was never fighting communism, terrorists, or WMDs (the WMDs are a pure lie at that). The intent was imperialism. That other stuff was an excuse. However, there is some merit to the terrorism part in regards to Afghanistan.
If the intent of an incursion into Mexico was purely to remove the cartels without all the US corporate and political-instituted hegemony, as I specifically stated, it would be a very good cause, one practically unseen in history, since military conflict is almost always fought in the nation's own interest.
Let's not be ironic though. It took 75 years (since the official founding of Germany) and countless wars started and/or instigated by the Germans until war, destruction, and genocide, unseen in modern history, by Germany finally came to an end. This isn't even speaking on the various Germanic kingdoms before unification.
On March 17 2013 10:47 Arnstein wrote:
On March 17 2013 10:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
At least this time around, the purpose of the violence would be doing something good for a change and solely that, rather than exploitation and conquest. It would certainly be a first in human history.
Isn't legalizing drugs and then outselling the cartels a much better idea?
Theoretically, from the pot advocacy camp, would this happen. If it were true, action would have been taken long ago. Also, fyi, the cartels are based in Mexico, not the US. Even if it did affect their US operations by some margin, their operations in Mexico and everywhere else would be perfectly fine.
On March 17 2013 11:08 Jago wrote:
On March 17 2013 10:03 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On March 17 2013 09:38 Jago wrote: Ah, yes, more violence will solve everything.
A snide and ignorant comment. Unfortunately, overwhelming and killing off the cartels is the only solution.
Attempts at overwhelming and killing off the cartels have been going on for what, 30 years now? How many more decades will it take for goverments to realize that it doesn't matter how many cartel members you kill and/or put in jail, because for as long as it is profitable new people will always step up.
Umm the overwhelming has been attempted by Mexico, the very country run by the cartels, meaning, nothing has been done. No action in Mexico has been taken by the US, and that's the kind of action that would make any sort of difference.
The only solution is a US force to annihilate the cartels and restore Mexican government to a position of stability and control such that any budding attempt at cartels are easily extinguished. Otherwise, Mexico is fucked for good.
That's a little insane. And to respond to your mid section, no. The cartels have something like 90% of their drugs going into the United States. This means that they would lose 90% of their business if it were legalized in the US. It doesn't matter where the business is based if the place you are selling isn't interested or has legal alternatives. You would functionally cut off their entire money supply.
And killing all of them is a stupid solution. Remember when the US dismantled the Medellin and Cali cartels? New cartels took their place. If there is a demand and there is money to be made someone is going to try to meet that demand and get rich.
THEIR drugs still come in. It just makes business a lot easier for them, which empowers them further. You're imagining that the cartels would suddenly lose out to someone else. No, they would adapt and keep their monopoly.
Killing them off is not a stupid solution. You don't defeat a problem by pulling out a couple weeds. That doesn't solve anything at all. Complete elimination is the resolution. Only by completely wiping them out in one fell swoop and restoring Mexican government can any future cartels be nipped right as they are budding. Taking out a couple while the rest thrive accomplishes nothing, since other cartels still exist to fill in the gap, or facilitate the growth of growing ones. That's why wrecking Medellin and Cali did nothing.
America can't afford that war. It'd get ugly fast, and there'd be a lot of dead soldiers equally as fast, and the war would become unpopular even faster. Not to mention that trying to get all of them would demand guerilla warfare on an unprecedented scale and be rife with the potential for civilian casualties, since the cartels are - obviously - entrenched in ordinary society.
Oh yeah, and there'd just be something new to replace them.
So long as people in America want drugs, there'll be someone in Mexico prepared to sell it to them.
It wouldn't just be dead soldiers, I'm sure the Cartels would start attacking civiliians in the US.
It's not like the wars in the Middle East where the US could "escape" once you open that can of worms it would be damn hard to close it.
Legalizing weed doesn't necessary mean everyone is free to smoke anyway. My company has a drug policy and im pretty sure that will stand even if it was legal by law. Just like drinking is legal but they can enforce none of that in the workplace. Or prohibiting uses of various legal prescription drugs depending on the nature of your job. You'll still have contractual obligations.
thats kinda why im not too worried if it does get legalized. its like saying you're against repealing prohibition because the minute that happens no one will get their work done. That turned out to be manageable just fine. All we probably need is to make DWH a criminal offense just like DWI is and it should be good to go.
ACAPULCO, Mexico -- Hundreds of armed vigilantes have taken control of a town on a major highway in the Pacific coast state of Guerrero, arresting local police officers and searching homes after a vigilante leader was killed. Several opened fire on a car of Mexican tourists headed to the beach for Easter week.
Members of the area's self-described "community police" say more than 1,500 members of the force were stopping traffic Wednesday at improvised checkpoints in the town of Tierra Colorado, which sits on the highway connecting Mexico City to Acapulco. They arrested 12 police and the former director of public security in the town after a leader of the state's vigilante movement was slain on Monday.
A tourist heading to the beach with relatives was slightly wounded Tuesday after they refused to stop at a roadblock and vigilantes fired shots at their car, officials said.
The vigilantes accuse the ex-security director of participating in the killing of vigilante leader Guadalupe Quinones Carbajal, 28, on behalf of local organized crime groups and dumping his body in a nearby town on Monday. They reported seizing several high-powered rifles from his car, and vigilantes were seen toting a number of sophisticated assault rifles on Wednesday, although it was not clear if all had been taken from the ex-security director's car.
"We have besieged the municipality, because here criminals operate with impunity in broad daylight, in view of municipal authorities. We have detained the director of public security because he is involved with criminals and he knows who killed our commander," said Bruno Placido Valerio, a spokesman for the vigilante group.
Placido said vigilantes had searched a number of homes in the town and seized drugs from some. They turned over the ex-security director and police officers to state prosecutors, who agreed to investigate their alleged ties to organized crime.
The growing movement of "self-defense" vigilante groups has seen masked townspeople throw up checkpoints in several parts of southern and western Mexico, stopping passing motorists to search for weapons or people whose names are on hand-written lists of "suspects" wanted for crimes like theft and extortion.
At least seven people have been killed after a gunman opened fire in a bar in northern Mexico, which has seen a resurgence in drug-related violence in recent weeks.
The man, armed with an AK-47 assault rifle, killed four men on Friday night who were customers in the bar in Chihuahua state as well as three women who worked there, said a spokesman for the state attorney general's office.
"It has not been determined whether the attack is connected to drug trafficking, but by the type of weapon involved, it is to be assumed," said the spokesman, Carlos Gonzalez.
The attack occurred in the city of Chihuahua, the capital of the state that is also home to Ciudad Juarez, considered one of the most violent cities in the world until recently.
The attacker entered the bar with his face covered by a bandana, said the spokesman.
Chihuahua has seen heavy fighting between the local Juarez cartel and the Sinaloa cartel, led by Joaquin "Shorty" Guzman, who is seeking to control the city that is one of the main routes for trafficking drugs into the United States.
People who want to do drugs should be able to do drugs. It's their body and their life. The costs of the war on drugs, both in terms of enforcement, in terms of tax dollars spent trying to get people not to do the things they want to do, in terms of civil liberties, as the police routinely search people without probable cause, spy on us, tap our phones, search our homes, and in terms of people rotting away in prison cells not for hurting anyone else but for choosing to get high on something aside from alcohol, are enormous. Lots of people like doing drugs. So you want to lock them in a cage? Why not just let them live their lives and focus on stopping violent criminals?
The war on drugs is the perfect war for the state. Randolph Bourne remarked once "war is the health of the state". It is in war that the state comes into it's own, swelling in size and prestige and expanding it's scope of control. The war on drugs is the perfect war because it's unwinnable. Every year there are more people to lock up, more suckers to cage, and ever more resources can be redirected towards this conflict, more liberties will be given up to protect us from the evil drug users. The fact that this war cannot be won is what makes it so attractive for the etatists.
Legalization would mean millions of families don't need to be ripped apart, drug dealers and narcotics agents would have to find productive work in the private sector (large scale enterprise would out compete criminal drug dealers and an end to prohibition would drastically reduce the number of police necessary, ergo these people would have to get real jobs creating wealth like everyone else) and taxes could be seriously reduced, because we wouldn't have to waste so much money paying the police to spy on us.
The government cannot even keep drugs out of their prisons, where inmates are strip searched, cells are routinely checked and everyone is kept locked up every day. They will never be able to stop drug use. But they don't care. It's not about the drugs, it's about control, it's about justifying ever larger police budgets and about making people give up their liberty, because of the boogieman of drug addicts.
EPT
