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 25 of 36 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 358

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

  1. #241
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,580

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyBoy View Post
    A) There is no realistic solution on this thread.

    B) Cartels, Growers, Politicians, Mexican mafia, Aryan brotherhood, Outlaw biker gangs, Street level dealers, Lawyers, mules, truckers, boarder patrol, and most of all corrupt politicians are making too much money off of illegal narcotics.

    Dittohead- If you were a border patrol agent in Mexico would you take $100,000 to look the other way for about 20 minutes?
    The realistic solution proposed is to legalize drugs and take the profit out of the illegal trade so that those upstanding groups you list would have to either find a new racket or get a job.

    I thought that was obvious.

    The people paying out a hundred grand for the border patrol to look the other way aren't going to be able to compete with companies shipping their merchandise legally via FedEx or whatever. Those companies simply don't charge that much.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  2. #242
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyBoy View Post
    A) There is no realistic solution on this thread.
    Then what's your solution? Keep prohibition around even though you acknowledge how bad the problems it causes are?

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyBoy View Post
    B) Cartels, Growers, Politicians, Mexican mafia, Aryan brotherhood, Outlaw biker gangs, Street level dealers, Lawyers, mules, truckers, boarder patrol, and most of all corrupt politicians are making too much money off of illegal narcotics.
    Translation: We can't end prohibition because prohibition has created too many problems.

    I looked into what mobsters did after alcohol prohibition was repealed, and many of them flooded over into other "shady" industries like gambling, racketeering, high interest "juice" loans, counterfeitting, etc. But they didn't shoot up legitimate businesses because they knew it wouldn't accomplish the goal of eliminating the competition. So yeah, when drug prohibition is repealed we should anticipate where these people will go next so we can deal with them there.

    Last edited by Binary_Digit; 04-01-10 at 10:31 AM.

  3. #243
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    Then what's your solution? Keep prohibition around even though you acknowledge how bad the problems it causes are?


    Translation: We can't end prohibition because prohibition has created too many problems.

    I looked into what mobsters did after alcohol prohibition was repealed, and many of them flooded over into other "shady" industries like gambling, racketeering, high interest "juice" loans, counterfeitting, etc. But they didn't shoot up legitimate businesses because they knew it wouldn't accomplish the goal of eliminating the competition. So yeah, when drug prohibition is repealed we should anticipate where these people will go next so we can deal with them there.

    Love the poster!

  4. #244
    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 Binary_Digit View Post
    Then what's your solution? Keep prohibition around even though you acknowledge how bad the problems it causes are?


    Translation: We can't end prohibition because prohibition has created too many problems.

    I looked into what mobsters did after alcohol prohibition was repealed, and many of them flooded over into other "shady" industries like gambling, racketeering, high interest "juice" loans, counterfeitting, etc. But they didn't shoot up legitimate businesses because they knew it wouldn't accomplish the goal of eliminating the competition. So yeah, when drug prohibition is repealed we should anticipate where these people will go next so we can deal with them there.

    The Lessons of Prohibition and Drug Legalization


    Let us examine the differences that Teasley (and others) cite between the era of Prohibition and the era in which we now live.

    First, during prohibition the government sought to restrict the consumption of alcohol although it lacked the moral consensus of the nation. That is, even during Prohibition, most people were accepting of alcohol.98 Such is not the case today, for the vast majority of citizens do feel that illicit drugs should remain illegal [see Chapter Eleven]. Thus, Prohibition went against the national consensus whereas illegalization of drugs does not.

    Second, the laws of Prohibition themselves were different than those dealing with illicit drugs today. During Prohibition, it was not illegal to drink alcohol, it was only illegal to sell it. Today, however, it is both illegal to sell and to use illicit drugs. Consequently, today's laws can target the users while those of the Prohibition era could not.99

    Third, during the Prohibition era several states did not support the federal laws. This fact created tension between the state and federal governments and hampered effective prosecution of alcohol distributors. Today, 48 states have signed the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and all are in effective agreement with the federal government in matters of drug policy - a state/federal consensus exists that was not present during Prohibition.100

    Fourth, criminal penalties are much more severe today than in the 1920's. For example, the first-offense bootlegger faced a maximum fine of $ 1,000 or six months in prison. Today, a first-offense trafficker of cocaine or heroin (of less than 100 grams) faces fines up to $1 million and imprisonment for up to 20 years.101

    Fifth, during Prohibition the United States was a "dry" nation within a "wet" international community. Just as the Prohibition policies were counter to the moral consensus within the U.S., they were also at odds with that of the international community (which explains why so much alcohol was imported from Canada). But as discussed in Chapter Three, the international community is resolute when it comes to drug policy; in December of 1988 over 80 countries signed the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.102 Sixth and finally, the administrative structure of the government agencies designed to carry out the Prohibition laws was narrow, unstable, and filled with political appointees. Today's national drug strategy involves over a dozen federal agencies coordinated by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In short, the governmental bodies that prosecute today's drug violators are much larger, have much better resources, and are much more professional than their Prohibition counterparts.103

    Thus, it is factually incorrect for the legalizers to analogize our history with Prohibition to today's drug policies. They simply do not have that much in common. But should the legalizers choose to make such an analogy, they also should be made aware of the fact that Prohibition was on balance a successful program.

    First, use of alcohol decreased significantly during Prohibition.104 This decrease in turn lead to a marked decrease in the incidence of cirrhosis of the liver.105 Also, alcohol-related arrests decreased 50%. 106 Finally, the suicide rate also decreased by 50%.107

    A second reason why Prohibition was a successful program is due to the fact that it did not -- contrary to popular myth -- cause an increase in the crime rate. It is true that there was an increase in the homicide rate during Prohibition, but this is not the same as an increase in the overall crime rate. Furthermore, the increase in homicide occurred predominantly in the African-American community, and African-Americans at that time were not the people responsible for alcohol trafficking.108 The drama of Elliot Ness and Al Capone largely was just that, drama sensationalized by the media of the time.

    In short, it is doubtful that one legitimately may analogize Prohibition with our current efforts to control drugs. There are too many differences in the laws, the political establishment, the moral consensus, and the international community to make such analogizing worthwhile. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Prohibition accomplished many of its goals, improved the health of the entire nation, and did not cause a significant increase in the crime rate. Mark Kleinman, who has proposed legalizing marijuana109 notes, the U.S. experience with Prohibition is the best evidence to support the continued illegalization of illicit drugs.
    Last edited by USA_1; 04-01-10 at 11:06 AM.
    "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

  5. #245
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

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

    First, during prohibition the government sought to restrict the consumption of alcohol although it lacked the moral consensus of the nation. That is, even during Prohibition, most people were accepting of alcohol.98 Such is not the case today, for the vast majority of citizens do feel that illicit drugs should remain illegal [see Chapter Eleven]. Thus, Prohibition went against the national consensus whereas illegalization of drugs does not.
    So the demand for alcohol then was higher than the demand for drugs today. That doesn't mean we can't compare alcohol prohibition to drug prohibition. Obviously the demand for marijuana alone is high enough that the difference is insignificant.

    Second, the laws of Prohibition themselves were different than those dealing with illicit drugs today. During Prohibition, it was not illegal to drink alcohol, it was only illegal to sell it. Today, however, it is both illegal to sell and to use illicit drugs. Consequently, today's laws can target the users while those of the Prohibition era could not.99
    Whether or not prohibitionist laws target the users is irrelevant. When it's illegal for users to buy (and/or sellers to sell) then that leads to a black market.

    Third, during the Prohibition era several states did not support the federal laws. This fact created tension between the state and federal governments and hampered effective prosecution of alcohol distributors. Today, 48 states have signed the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, and all are in effective agreement with the federal government in matters of drug policy - a state/federal consensus exists that was not present during Prohibition.100
    The fact that several states opposed alcohol prohibition, but not drug prohibition, is only relevant toward predicting how soon the prohibition is likely to be repealed. This "difference" has no bearing on whether or not we can reasonably compare alcohol prohibition with drug prohibition to predict what problems are and are not caused when it is implemented or repealed.

    Fourth, criminal penalties are much more severe today than in the 1920's. For example, the first-offense bootlegger faced a maximum fine of $ 1,000 or six months in prison. Today, a first-offense trafficker of cocaine or heroin (of less than 100 grams) faces fines up to $1 million and imprisonment for up to 20 years.101
    Criminal penalties are more severe, and yet the system is still overwhelmed by thugs who are willing to take the risk for the reward. This fact actually supports the argument that drug prohibition is doomed to failure. Furthermore, again, this "difference" has no bearing on whether or not we can reasonably compare alcohol prohibition with drug prohibition to predict what problems are and are not caused when it is implemented or repealed.

    Fifth, during Prohibition the United States was a "dry" nation within a "wet" international community. Just as the Prohibition policies were counter to the moral consensus within the U.S., they were also at odds with that of the international community (which explains why so much alcohol was imported from Canada). But as discussed in Chapter Three, the international community is resolute when it comes to drug policy; in December of 1988 over 80 countries signed the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.102 Sixth and finally, the administrative structure of the government agencies designed to carry out the Prohibition laws was narrow, unstable, and filled with political appointees. Today's national drug strategy involves over a dozen federal agencies coordinated by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. In short, the governmental bodies that prosecute today's drug violators are much larger, have much better resources, and are much more professional than their Prohibition counterparts.103
    And yet the system is still overwhelmed by thugs who are willing to take the risk for the reward. This fact actually supports the argument that drug prohibition is doomed to failure.

    Thus, it is factually incorrect for the legalizers to analogize our history with Prohibition to today's drug policies. They simply do not have that much in common.
    I'm not convinced of that.

    First, use of alcohol decreased significantly during Prohibition.104
    Only at first.

    Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929:



    This decrease in turn lead to a marked decrease in the incidence of cirrhosis of the liver.105
    We show that cirrhosis was lower during Prohibition than in most years before or after, which makes a prima facie case that Prohibition reduced cirrhosis. Further examination, however, suggests caution in drawing this conclusion. First, there have been substantial fluctuations in cirrhosis outside the Prohibition period, which suggests that factors other than Prohibition should be considered before concluding that Prohibition caused the low level during Prohibition. Second, cirrhosis did not jump dramatically upon repeal of Prohibition, which fails to suggest an important effect of Prohibition. Most importantly, cirrhosis had fallen to its low, Prohibition level by the time Prohibition began, which means Prohibition did not cause the low level of cirrhosis at the beginning of Prohibition.

    http://www.bu.edu/econ/workingpapers...ron/cirrho.pdf
    Also, alcohol-related arrests decreased 50%. 106
    Alcohol-related arrests were above the pre-prohibition records by 1925.

    Finally, the suicide rate also decreased by 50%.107
    Of course the suicide rate followed the rate of consumption and cirrhosis, both of which decreased at first but then jumped back up.

    A second reason why Prohibition was a successful program is due to the fact that it did not -- contrary to popular myth -- cause an increase in the crime rate. It is true that there was an increase in the homicide rate during Prohibition, but this is not the same as an increase in the overall crime rate.
    Wrong again.



    Furthermore, the increase in homicide occurred predominantly in the African-American community, and African-Americans at that time were not the people responsible for alcohol trafficking.108
    Good grief, these people are all over the place with their claims.

    At first I was surprised to see druglibrary.org making these statements, especially when sources on their own website contradict them. But then I learned that the source is not druglibrary.org, it's actually from Chapter 5 of "Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions" published by the D.E.A. in 1994. You can't find it on their website anymore.

    Drug Legalization: Myths and Misconceptions

    I've already exposed enough of the D.E.A.'s lies & misrepresentations in this post that I'm not going to dignify this one by searching for the homicide rates among African-Americans during alcohol prohibition. Suffice it to say there are plenty of good reasons to compare alcohol prohibition with drug prohibition and that article didn't do much to convince me otherwise.
    Last edited by Binary_Digit; 04-01-10 at 01:05 PM.

  6. #246
    Advisor PonyBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    06-24-10 @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    587

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    Then what's your solution? Keep prohibition around even though you acknowledge how bad the problems it causes are?


    Translation: We can't end prohibition because prohibition has created too many problems.

    I looked into what mobsters did after alcohol prohibition was repealed, and many of them flooded over into other "shady" industries like gambling, racketeering, high interest "juice" loans, counterfeitting, etc. But they didn't shoot up legitimate businesses because they knew it wouldn't accomplish the goal of eliminating the competition. So yeah, when drug prohibition is repealed we should anticipate where these people will go next so we can deal with them there.

    When they said the 'war on drugs was lost' back in the 90's well this is what they meant by it. All these cartels, corrupt politicians, drug addicts everything that stems from narcotics is just too deeply ingrained. We missed our chance back in the 70's to stem the narcotics frenzy.

    My solution to this problem is very simple: Build a 2,000 mile long steel wall. It's not like we cant afford it.

    But yeah, We could make narcotics legal, but it's going to come with a heavy price. And I'm not even sure if we can afford this narc war to escalate any further.

  7. #247
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyBoy View Post
    But yeah, We could make narcotics legal, but it's going to come with a heavy price. And I'm not even sure if we can afford this narc war to escalate any further.
    You have yet to explain this price, and only speculate about "cartel wars". In order to garner some support, you have to be more specific and expand your theory in a more appropriate fashion.
    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

  8. #248
    Advisor PonyBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Last Seen
    06-24-10 @ 10:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    587

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    You have yet to explain this price, and only speculate about "cartel wars". In order to garner some support, you have to be more specific and expand your theory in a more appropriate fashion.
    Read the thread from the beginning. And if you're still having trouble figuring it out then you may need to inform yourself on the past 30 years of the cartel wars. I would start with Colombia/Pablo Escobar. (Wikipedia/Brittanica)

  9. #249
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyBoy View Post
    Read the thread from the beginning. And if you're still having trouble figuring it out then you may need to inform yourself on the past 30 years of the cartel wars. I would start with Colombia/Pablo Escobar. (Wikipedia/Brittanica)
    For the 1000th time, this stuff directly stems from the War on Drugs.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  10. #250
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

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

    Quote Originally Posted by PonyBoy View Post
    Read the thread from the beginning. And if you're still having trouble figuring it out then you may need to inform yourself on the past 30 years of the cartel wars. I would start with Colombia/Pablo Escobar. (Wikipedia/Brittanica)
    That's the price of prohibition, not legalization.

Page 25 of 36 FirstFirst ... 15232425262735 ... 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
  •