View Poll Results: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

Voters
77. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    28 36.36%
  • No

    33 42.86%
  • Maybe

    1 1.30%
  • Other

    15 19.48%
Page 12 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 358

Thread: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

  1. #111
    Guru
    USA_1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    BANNED
    Last Seen
    04-16-11 @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

    Quote Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan View Post
    You have heard of Posse Comitatus, right?



    Who the hell gives a crap about therapeutic qualities?

    How about letting adults make adult choices because that's what we let adults do?
    Change the law.


    If adults act like adults.
    "This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."" GWB

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    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?
    I voted yes in principle, but at a policy level I don't really see the practical application. I am not in favor of legalizing hard narcotics like heroin and cocaine, and never will be. These drugs are concentrates, addictive, and only have damaging side affects. I am however in favor of decriminalization.

    I am completely in favor of legalizing soft drugs like cannabis, magic mushrooms, and other whole-plant drugs that are not derivatives or concentrates. But legalizing those would have a negligible impact on the drug trade since they are the least profitable to the cartels.

    Mexico's problem is corruption. They can't crack down on the cartels effectively because the cartels are not some small time organization. Like any well organized mafia, they have people in key positions of authority; positions that aren't covered can be easily bought with the loads of money they have.

    I do agree that the American demand is putting a huge upward pressure on the Mexican underground to provide, and there is a lot of profit to be had. Add to that, the desperation of the poor will turn more people towards drug production and peddling. IMO this all goes back to NAFTA. The flood of American goods into the Mexican market following the creation of NAFTA sewed the seeds of what we are now seeing. Local businesses and farmers can't compete with the in-flow of American products, and so they go under. When they go under, they become poor and corrupt, which results in illegal immigration to find a better life, or becoming part of underground markets like the drug cartels.

    The problem is only going to get worse until the social and economic inequities are addressed, and that is never going to happen because American business doesn't give a damn about anyone they are stepping on in order to get to the gold bar.

  3. #113
    User Ward's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Virginia ಠ_ಠ
    Last Seen
    01-21-11 @ 02:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    77

    Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

    I voted yes since it would benefit us and them. I find it funny when people keep saying "SEAL OUR BORDERS SO THE DRUGS CAN'T GET IN!!!" yet we can't even keep drugs out of max security prisons.

  4. #114
    Shankmasta Killa
    TacticalEvilDan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Western NY and Geneva, CH
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,444

    Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    Change the law.
    As in with respect to Posse Comitatus? Are you saying that you want the military involved in law enforcement activities?

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    If adults act like adults.
    It's not the role of the government to decide if adults are acting like adults and thus worthy of adult responsibilities.
    I'm already gearing up for Finger Vote 2014.

    Just for reference, means my post was a giant steaming pile of sarcasm.

  5. #115
    Educator Jucon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    04-22-14 @ 07:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    787

    Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    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?
    I voted yes only because I would be in favor of legalizing marijuana only. That would likely do a hell of a lot of damage to the Mexican Cartel's profits.

    I am not in favor of legalizing other drugs though.

    I can't imagine why anyone would want to inject or snort drugs anyways.

    I'd have to hear the arguments for and against on a case by case basis to make up my mind on specific drugs, but for now I am against legalizing most currently illegal drugs.

  6. #116
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    Just saying meth changes behavior and can lead to violence on its own. It ruins lives and kills people. It should never, ever be made legal.
    Yes, and again one could say the same thing about alcohol. But some solutions are worse than the problems they try to fix, while also failing to fix the problem.

    When one thinks of liberal drug policy, one would likely think of the Netherlands:

    ... cannabis use among youth in the Netherlands so far evolved in two waves, with a first peak around 1970, a low during the late 1970s and early 1980s, and a second peak in the mid 1990s… Rising or falling cannabis consumption need not be the unequivocal result of decriminalisation or criminalisation… Statutory decriminalisation of cannabis took place in 1976trends in cannabis use in the Netherlands are rather similar to those in other European countries, and Dutch figures on cannabis use are not out of line with those from countries that did not decriminalise cannabis. The U.S. figures consistently appear to be higher than those in the Netherlands. Over time prevalence of cannabis use show a wave-like trend in many countries, including the Netherlands. This supports Reuband’s earlier conclusion that cannabis use trends evolve rather independently from drug policy.”
    Trends And Patterns In Cannabis Use In the Netherlands

    So the net result isn't lower or higher drug use, though the proportion that are problem drug users in the netherlands is much lower than elsewhere as regulation encourages more responsible use patterns. There are other benefits such as not ruining the lives of people who did nothing to harm others, and saving that money that would be spent ruining peoples' lives to instead actually minimize the harm associated with drugs. Of course the netherlands merely decriminalized soft drugs. This policy does not carry the benefit of reducing organized crime as legalization would, but it does recognize that most users are not dangerous to society, and it does encourage a social separation between marijuana users and hard drug users.

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    You do know that many more lives were lost and ruined and the cost to society was far greater after alcohol was legalized, don't you?
    On a per year basis? I do know the homicide rate went down after prohibition. There were more deaths/disability from methanol poisoning during prohibition. Percentage of population using alcohol went down a bit during prohibition, but irresponsible use went up.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    The drain on social security by drug addicts and alcoholics is huge. They destroy their minds and bodies with illegal drugs ,then go on disability, which makes them useless to society.

    I say make them live in tent cities. If its good enough for our soldiers then it's good enough for them. Feed them the leftovers from society that we also feed to hogs.
    There's nothing more dangerous than somebody with nothing to lose.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    The drain on social security by drug addicts and alcoholics is huge. They destroy their minds and bodies with illegal drugs ,then go on disability, which makes them useless to society.

    I say make them live in tent cities. If its good enough for our soldiers then it's good enough for them. Feed them the leftovers from society that we also feed to hogs.
    The majority of drug users are not problem users, actually. So making use itself a crime casts too wide of a net.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalAvenger View Post
    There is no way that meth will ever be legalized. It is probably the worst drug out there. I can't imagine a country full of tweakers.
    Most people don't avoid meth merely because it is illegal. They know it is dangerous and have better things to do.

  7. #117
    Guru
    USA_1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    BANNED
    Last Seen
    04-16-11 @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,142

    Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiveUninhibited View Post


    On a per year basis? I do know the homicide rate went down after prohibition. . Percentage of population using alcohol went down a bit during prohibition, but irresponsible use went up.

    .
    Can you provide a link?

    Some of the worst gangland violence in history occurred during the decades after prohibition was repealed and alcohol use and abuse has skyrocketed ever since. Drinking has become a national pastime with a tavern on every corner and irresponsible drinking is the norm.

    The repeal of prohibition did not eliminate organized crime, they just diversified and adapted. Some believe legalizing all drugs is the answer, but it may just open up a whole new can of worms.
    "This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country."" GWB

  8. #118
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

    Quote Originally Posted by Orion View Post
    I voted yes in principle, but at a policy level I don't really see the practical application. I am not in favor of legalizing hard narcotics like heroin and cocaine, and never will be. These drugs are concentrates, addictive, and only have damaging side affects. I am however in favor of decriminalization.

    I am completely in favor of legalizing soft drugs like cannabis, magic mushrooms, and other whole-plant drugs that are not derivatives or concentrates. But legalizing those would have a negligible impact on the drug trade since they are the least profitable to the cartels.

    Mexico's problem is corruption. They can't crack down on the cartels effectively because the cartels are not some small time organization. Like any well organized mafia, they have people in key positions of authority; positions that aren't covered can be easily bought with the loads of money they have.

    I do agree that the American demand is putting a huge upward pressure on the Mexican underground to provide, and there is a lot of profit to be had. Add to that, the desperation of the poor will turn more people towards drug production and peddling. IMO this all goes back to NAFTA. The flood of American goods into the Mexican market following the creation of NAFTA sewed the seeds of what we are now seeing. Local businesses and farmers can't compete with the in-flow of American products, and so they go under. When they go under, they become poor and corrupt, which results in illegal immigration to find a better life, or becoming part of underground markets like the drug cartels.

    The problem is only going to get worse until the social and economic inequities are addressed, and that is never going to happen because American business doesn't give a damn about anyone they are stepping on in order to get to the gold bar.
    Decriminalization still allows the black market to function by shielding the demand aspect (user) from a considerable amount of risk. This has to be taken with great importance as the criminal element of the drug trade... the supply aspect (pusher) is still the only means to obtain the drug. In order to shut down cartels and the sort, you will have to legalize their product. But certain measures would still have to be addressed given the addictive properties to cocaine, heroin, meth, etc..., from a societal point of view. Easier access to hard drugs presents its own sort of risks.

    The focus on the "war on drugs" shifts from deterrence to rehabilitation. Drug abuse in these regards is a disease and until it is treated like one, the "war on drugs" will be a losing battle. Hospitals in the tune of the 100's, maybe even 1000's if we include nicotine and alcohol. All intended to treat addiction as a disease and allow a person to be "weened" off in the most medically sensible practice. Yes.... This means they will be (for the time being) supplying addicts with drugs.

    Can you deal with that? If not; legalization is not for you. If not; the drug cartels will remain forever dominant in the black market.
    Last edited by Kushinator; 03-29-10 at 10:57 AM.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  9. #119
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    Can you provide a link?

    Some of the worst gangland violence in history occurred during the decades after prohibition was repealed and alcohol use and abuse has skyrocketed ever since. Drinking has become a national pastime with a tavern on every corner and irresponsible drinking is the norm.

    The repeal of prohibition did not eliminate organized crime, they just diversified and adapted. Some believe legalizing all drugs is the answer, but it may just open up a whole new can of worms.
    And where did it shift? To the illicit drugs market. You will always have to police for certain kinds of criminal behavior (because we have made them illegal) such as murder, theft, extortion, kidnapping, etc....

    In the absence of alcohol legalization, you have an entire industry under the control of criminality. Legalization and regulation lead to a massive industry with incredible global demand and job creation (that pays taxes too!).

    Think of the loss in tax revenue as a result of the drug war in both the expenditure side, and the opportunity cost aspect.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #120
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: Should the U.S. legalize drugs for Mexico's benefit?

    Quote Originally Posted by USA-1 View Post
    Can you provide a link?

    Some of the worst gangland violence in history occurred during the decades after prohibition was repealed


    I'm not going to claim causation as I haven't controlled for other potentially relevant variables - this is just raw crime data. But I can say that the rise in homicide coincided with the rise in the number of dry states, with a local maximum near the end of alcohol prohibition. The homicide rate rose again as the war on drugs ramped up.

    An examination of death rates does reveal a dramatic drop in deaths due to alcoholism and cirrhosis, but the drop occurred during World War I, before enforcement of Prohibition.[28] The death rate from alcoholism bottomed out just before the enforcement of Prohibition and then returned to pre-World War I levels.[29] That was probably the result of increased consumption during Prohibition and the consumption of more potent and poisonous alcoholic beverages. The death rate from alcoholism and cirrhosis also declined rather dramatically in Denmark, Ireland, and Great Britain during World War I, but rates in those countries continued to fall during the 1920s (in the absence of prohibition) when rates in the United States were either rising or stable.[30]

    Prohibitionists such as Irving Fisher lamented that the drunkards must be forgotten in order to concentrate the benefits of Prohibition on the young. Prevent the young from drinking and let the older alcoholic generations die out. However, if that had happened, we could expect the average age of people dying from alcoholism and cirrhosis to have increased. But the average age of people dying from alcoholism fell by six months between 1916 and 1923, a period of otherwise general improvement in the health of young people.[31]
    Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure | Mark Thornton | Cato Institute: Policy Analysis

    As for irresponsible use, prohibition had a predictable effect upon consumption patterns:

    Prohibition had pervasive (and perverse) effects on every aspect of alcohol production, distribution, and consumption. Changing the rules from those of the free market to those of Prohibition broke the link that prohibitionists had assumed between consumption and social evil. The rule changes also caused unintended consequences to enter the equation.

    The most notable of those consequences has been labeled the "Iron Law of Prohibition" by Richard Cowan.(9) That law states that the more intense the law enforcement, the more potent the prohibited substance becomes. When drugs or alcoholic beverages are prohibited, they will become more potent, will have greater variability in potency, will be adulterated with unknown or dangerous substances, and will not be produced and consumed under normal market constraints.(10) The Iron Law undermines the prohibitionist case and reduces or outweighs the benefits ascribed to a decrease in consumption.

    Statistics indicate that for a long time Americans spent a falling share of income on alcoholic beverages. They also purchased higher quality brands and weaker types of alcoholic beverages. Before Prohibition, Americans spent roughly equal amounts on beer and spirits.(11) However, during Prohibition virtually all production, and therefore consumption, was of distilled spirits and fortified wines. Beer became relatively more expensive because of its bulk, and it might have disappeared altogether except for home-made beer and near beer, which could be converted into real beer.(12)

    Figure 2 shows that the underground economy swiftly moved from the production of beer to the production of the more potent form of alcohol, spirits.(13) Prohibition made it more difficult to supply weaker, bulkier products, such as beer, than stronger, compact products, such as whiskey, because the largest cost of selling an illegal product is avoiding detection.(14) Therefore, while all alcohol prices rose, the price of whiskey rose more slowly than that of beer.

    Fisher used retail alcohol prices to demonstrate that Prohibition was working by raising the price and decreasing the quantity produced. However, his price quotations also revealed that the Iron Law of Prohibition was at work. The price of beer increased by more than 700 percent, and that of brandies increased by 433 percent, but spirit prices increased by only 270 percent, which led to an absolute increase in the consumption of spirits over pre-Prohibition levels.(15)
    (same cato source)

    Couldn't find the exact source, but the average equivalents of alcohol consumed per user increased 5-fold during prohibition, though the number of users was less. And as the above sources note, alcohol consumption was already on the decline prior to national prohibition, but the decline stopped in 1922.

    The repeal of prohibition did not eliminate organized crime, they just diversified and adapted. Some believe legalizing all drugs is the answer, but it may just open up a whole new can of worms.
    No it just reduced organized crime. Organized crime always existed, it just gets a huge boost from prohibitions.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 03-29-10 at 11:27 AM.

Page 12 of 36 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •