US Drug policy is the cause of Mexican immigration

JensB · Feb 8, 2016

US drug policy is the only reason the black market that funds the Mexican drug war exists. It has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of mMexicans to flee to the USA. Conservatives who want to halt migration from Mexico should legalize drugs, destroying the Mexican drug economy, end ending a civil war that is killing tens of thousands annually, and pushing fleeing refugees into the USA.

Crovax · Feb 8, 2016

JensB said:
US drug policy is the only reason the black market that funds the Mexican drug war exists. It has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of mMexicans to flee to the USA. Conservatives who want to halt migration from Mexico should legalize drugs, destroying the Mexican drug economy, end ending a civil war that is killing tens of thousands annually, and pushing fleeing refugees into the USA.

The cartels deal in more than just marijuana and there is no way the hard drugs are going to be legalized and morally it is repugnant to suggest they should be.

clownboy · Feb 8, 2016

JensB said:
US drug policy is the only reason the black market that funds the Mexican drug war exists. It has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of mMexicans to flee to the USA. Conservatives who want to halt migration from Mexico should legalize drugs, destroying the Mexican drug economy, end ending a civil war that is killing tens of thousands annually, and pushing fleeing refugees into the USA.

Nonsense. The folks of South America have been coming here in droves long before the war on drugs. Heck, if you bother to ask why they come here, it all comes down to money.

ocean515 · Feb 8, 2016

JensB said:
US drug policy is the only reason the black market that funds the Mexican drug war exists. It has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of mMexicans to flee to the USA. Conservatives who want to halt migration from Mexico should legalize drugs, destroying the Mexican drug economy, end ending a civil war that is killing tens of thousands annually, and pushing fleeing refugees into the USA.

What an awesome spin! Stoners want to legalize drugs to end illegal immigration.

No way this argument was created from a sober mind.....

Fearandloathing · Feb 8, 2016

JensB said:
US drug policy is the only reason the black market that funds the Mexican drug war exists. It has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of mMexicans to flee to the USA. Conservatives who want to halt migration from Mexico should legalize drugs, destroying the Mexican drug economy, end ending a civil war that is killing tens of thousands annually, and pushing fleeing refugees into the USA.

They are refugees now?

Do you know what a refugee is?

I can tell you what it is not. It is not a dirty little piss ant gang banger who's being hunted by other gang bangers.

Mr Person · Feb 8, 2016

Crovax said:
The cartels deal in more than just marijuana and there is no way the hard drugs are going to be legalized and morally it is repugnant to suggest they should be.

1. Devil's Advocate: What is morally repugnant about the ingestion of a collection of molecules for the purpose of affecting one's mental state? What makes ingestion of coffee and alcohol acceptable, but not cocaine?

1a. Devil's Advocate 2: What objective reason is there for concluding that something like ingesting coffee for caffeine stimulation is morally unaccepable but ingesting cocaine for stimulation is not?

2. Sensible: How about decriminalization? Even if one thinks that drugs are evil and drug dealers should be executed, one has to still face the facts that the "War on Drugs" has utterly failed to stop people from doing drugs, no matter how hard. (In fact, in countries that DO execute drug dealers, people still do drugs).

At the very least, it is an inescapable fact that a potential jail sentence isn't going to stop someone from sticking a needle in their arm - they're already addicted and chancing death anyway.

(See also conservative arguments about how gun control should be done away with because it won't stop gun crimes)

Mr Person · Feb 8, 2016

Fearandloathing said:
They are refugees now?

Do you know what a refugee is?

I can tell you what it is not. It is not a dirty little piss ant gang banger who's being hunted by other gang bangers.

It is, however, anyone who is not a "dirty little piss ant gang banger who left Mexico because of the violence perpetrated by Cartels against anyone who dares do anything that looks like it might threaten cartels or support anyone who threatens cartels."

Reformedfindlay · Feb 8, 2016

JensB said:
US drug policy is the only reason the black market that funds the Mexican drug war exists. It has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and forced millions of mMexicans to flee to the USA. Conservatives who want to halt migration from Mexico should legalize drugs, destroying the Mexican drug economy, end ending a civil war that is killing tens of thousands annually, and pushing fleeing refugees into the USA.

No they come here for work. Companies like them for their ability to work like dogs for 2 dollars an hour.

Crovax · Feb 8, 2016

Mr Person said:
1. Devil's Advocate: What is morally repugnant about the ingestion of a collection of molecules for the purpose of affecting one's mental state? What makes ingestion of coffee and alcohol acceptable, but not cocaine?

1a. Devil's Advocate 2: What objective reason is there for concluding that something like ingesting coffee for caffeine stimulation is morally unaccepable but ingesting cocaine for stimulation is not?

You are just being silly. As im sure you know cocaine has actual medical applications so its merit has never been in doubt. It got banned for its potential for relational abuse something which caffeine does not have, nor does it have the same intense impairment effects, negative short and long term side effects and doesnt have nearly the withdrawal.

2. Sensible: How about decriminalization? Even if one thinks that drugs are evil and drug dealers should be executed, one has to still face the facts that the "War on Drugs" has utterly failed to stop people from doing drugs, no matter how hard. (In fact, in countries that DO execute drug dealers, people still do drugs).

Prohibition does stop some drug use, I dont think any reasonable person expected that it would or made a claim that it would do so.

Actually, Prohibition Was a Success - NYTimes.com

The (Not So) Roaring ’20s - NYTimes.com

At the very least, it is an inescapable fact that a potential jail sentence isn't going to stop someone from sticking a needle in their arm - they're already addicted and chancing death anyway.

(See also conservative arguments about how gun control should be done away with because it won't stop gun crimes)

considering we dont put simple needle users in jail, 99% people in federal jail are in there for dealing drugs not using them. Not to mention going apples to oranges win guns which is an implicit right in the constitution. and of course throw in a vague no true scottsman and you have hit the trifecta

beerftw · Feb 8, 2016

Crovax said:
The cartels deal in more than just marijuana and there is no way the hard drugs are going to be legalized and morally it is repugnant to suggest they should be.

They actually deal in more than drugs too. They supply alot of the black market firearms to the us through lax border control here and poor enforcement there. Guns from the former soviet union, and many counterfeits are shipped from mexico to here or the other way around, arms are a big business, and the bigger the cartels, the bigger the guns and more money needed to smuggle such heavily illegal items.

They also traffic people, everything from slave laborors to child sex slaves are trafficked by those cartels, human life and dignity means nothing to them if enough cash is involved. Most of their victims are from mexico to the tip of south america, while their destination is usually the us or canada.

I totally favor legalizing marijuana, but hard drugs no, problem is if they lost their whole drug market, they would just move more into human trafficking and weapons smuggling, and I doubt america wants a bunch of slaves smuggled to america or gangs being flooded with soviet cold war weapons, If there is money in it the cartels will do it.

akrunner88 · Feb 9, 2016

I don't think legalizing hard drugs is a good idea, but I would be ok at least debating decriminalization in favor of treatment over incarceration. Incarceration just puts a black stain on ones record for life, meaning when they get out of jail their chances of going back into the same life they were imprisoned for are high.

With hard drugs, especially meth and heroin it's not just the individual that's affected. It's their families, their children, their communities. I've seen heroin suck the life out of someone I know and no libertarian argument is ever going to sway me that this poison should be legal.

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2016

ocean515 said:
What an awesome spin! Stoners want to legalize drugs to end illegal immigration.

No way this argument was created from a sober mind.....

Oh, is your argument that the Mexican drug cartels are not a problem ?

Or do you just think it's not our problem, even though we're their primary source of funding ??

Thoreau72 · Feb 9, 2016

Crovax said:
The cartels deal in more than just marijuana and there is no way the hard drugs are going to be legalized and morally it is repugnant to suggest they should be.

Do you mean to suggest that prior to 1914 and the Harrison Act, back when all drugs were legal and available at the doctor or druggist's office, that this country was morally repugnant? IOW, are you saying that legal drugs makes a society/country morally repugnant?

Thoreau72 · Feb 9, 2016

akrunner88 said:
I don't think legalizing hard drugs is a good idea, but I would be ok at least debating decriminalization in favor of treatment over incarceration. Incarceration just puts a black stain on ones record for life, meaning when they get out of jail their chances of going back into the same life they were imprisoned for are high.

With hard drugs, especially meth and heroin it's not just the individual that's affected. It's their families, their children, their communities. I've seen heroin suck the life out of someone I know and no libertarian argument is ever going to sway me that this poison should be legal.

What differences do you see between legalization and decriminalization?

ocean515 · Feb 9, 2016

Absentglare said:
Oh, is your argument that the Mexican drug cartels are not a problem ?

Or do you just think it's not our problem, even though we're their primary source of funding ??

:roll:

How hard did you have to think to invent this strawman from the words I posted? Is it a mental spasm, or is some thought and consideration actually given to it before you type?

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2016

ocean515 said:
:roll:

How hard did you have to think to invent this strawman from the words I posted? Is it a mental spasm, or is some thought and consideration actually given to it before you type?

I want to understand your argument. How do you reconcile your position ? Do you not see how the demand for illicit drugs in this country impacts our neighbors ?

Mr Person · Feb 9, 2016

1. Devil's Advocate: What is morally repugnant about the ingestion of a collection of molecules for the purpose of affecting one's mental state? What makes ingestion of coffee and alcohol acceptable, but not cocaine?

1a. Devil's Advocate 2: What objective reason is there for concluding that something like ingesting coffee for caffeine stimulation is morally unaccepable but ingesting cocaine for stimulation is not?

Crovax said:
You are just being silly.

No, actually, I'm not.

If it's so silly, then it should be easy for you to come up with a reasoned response. People seem to accept without thinking that the government is right when it tells you that it is right. I'm asking for an explanation beyond 'well, the government made it illegal 100 years ago, so of course it's immoral you silly person'.

Why is it morally acceptable to enjoy alcohol or caffeine, but not enjoy anything the government says should be illegal recreationally? Is government some kind of deity, which determines morality?

There really isn't any logical distinction between the various legal and illegal drugs as used for recreation. There are only variations in addictive potential and so forth, but those are not MORAL distinctions.

(16% of alcohol users become addicted; 23% of cocaine users become addicted. Is there some universal law of morality floating out there, which says that enjoying anything with over a 16% addiction rate is immoral, while anything other moral? Of course not).

ocean515 · Feb 9, 2016

Absentglare said:
I want to understand your argument. How do you reconcile your position ? Do you not see how the demand for illicit drugs in this country impacts our neighbors ?

LOL

What is there to reconcile? It would appear by the suggestion in the OP, the stoners have come up with a spin that blames illegal immigration on drug policy. It's hysterical.

As I wrote, had to be serious toking going on to dream that up that argument in order to make it easier to get loaded.

Crovax · Feb 9, 2016

Mr Person said:
1. Devil's Advocate: What is morally repugnant about the ingestion of a collection of molecules for the purpose of affecting one's mental state? What makes ingestion of coffee and alcohol acceptable, but not cocaine?

1a. Devil's Advocate 2: What objective reason is there for concluding that something like ingesting coffee for caffeine stimulation is morally unaccepable but ingesting cocaine for stimulation is not?

No, actually, I'm not.

If it's so silly, then it should be easy for you to come up with a reasoned response. People seem to accept without thinking that the government is right when it tells you that it is right. I'm asking for an explanation beyond 'well, the government made it illegal 100 years ago, so of course it's immoral you silly person'.

Why is it morally acceptable to enjoy alcohol or caffeine, but not enjoy anything the government says should be illegal recreationally? Is government some kind of deity, which determines morality?

There really isn't any logical distinction between the various legal and illegal drugs as used for recreation. There are only variations in addictive potential and so forth, but those are not MORAL distinctions.

(16% of alcohol users become addicted; 23% of cocaine users become addicted. Is there some universal law of morality floating out there, which says that enjoying anything with over a 16% addiction rate is immoral, while anything other moral? Of course not).

Alcohol is a main factor in 40% of violent crimes and 37% of people currently in jail were under influence of alcohol at the time they were arrested. Alcohol is objectively a bad influence on our society. And your reasoning is that we already have 1 widespread bad influence so all the others should be legal as well. You really dont see why someone would find that morally repugnant?

Crovax · Feb 9, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
Do you mean to suggest that prior to 1914 and the Harrison Act, back when all drugs were legal and available at the doctor or druggist's office, that this country was morally repugnant? IOW, are you saying that legal drugs makes a society/country morally repugnant?

I would say they were ignorant to the damage it would cause and that lead to the reason that those are banned now

Thoreau72 · Feb 9, 2016

Crovax said:
I would say they were ignorant to the damage it would cause and that lead to the reason that those are banned now

They were ignorant to the damage what would cause? FYI, marijuana (not effected by Harrison) has been a long known therapeutic substance since before the US was formed.

Do you mean they were ignorant to the damage alcohol would cause?

Do you suppose the damage caused by drug use is greater than the damage caused society by prohibition? If so, you're on very thin ice.

Crovax · Feb 9, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
They were ignorant to the damage what would cause? FYI, marijuana (not effected by Harrison) has been a long known therapeutic substance since before the US was formed.

Do you mean they were ignorant to the damage alcohol would cause?

Do you suppose the damage caused by drug use is greater than the damage caused society by prohibition? If so, you're on very thin ice.

What damage is caused to society by prohibition?

Absentglare · Feb 9, 2016

ocean515 said:
LOL

What is there to reconcile? It would appear by the suggestion in the OP, the stoners have come up with a spin that blames illegal immigration on drug policy. It's hysterical.

As I wrote, had to be serious toking going on to dream that up that argument in order to make it easier to get loaded.

Then you're only going by the title of the thread and not the OP, itself ?

Your blanket dismissal went far beyond attempting to discredit the connection to immigration.

Can you please tone it down and help me understand what your thought process is ? I am sincerely curious.

Thoreau72 · Feb 9, 2016

Crovax said:
What damage is caused to society by prohibition?

Many social pathologies are caused by prohibition. It took only 14 years of alcohol prohibition for the country to realize the harms caused by prohibition, and for calls for repeal to succeed.

Primarily, violence and crime increases and is sustained by prohibition, as gangs and violent individuals use guns to settle disputes. Closely connected to that is the corruption of the law enforcement profession. That is why there is a group known as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, LEAP. I've met several of their members and listened to their presentations. It is very powerful, and based upon the historical record regarding that 'noble experiment', the Volstead Act.

Another is the damage caused to the very fabric of society, as men turn in their brothers and mothers to the authorities. Blacks are imprisoned at a very high rate, and as fragile as the black family is, things are made far worse by the prohibition.

The Fourth Amendment has been trashed, civil forfeiture has gone crazy thanks to a counterproductive drug policy, and on and on.

http://www.leap.cc/

Crovax · Feb 9, 2016

Thoreau72 said:
Many social pathologies are caused by prohibition. It took only 14 years of alcohol prohibition for the country to realize the harms caused by prohibition, and for calls for repeal to succeed.

Primarily, violence and crime increases and is sustained by prohibition, as gangs and violent individuals use guns to settle disputes. Closely connected to that is the corruption of the law enforcement profession. That is why there is a group known as Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, LEAP. I've met several of their members and listened to their presentations. It is very powerful, and based upon the historical record regarding that 'noble experiment', the Volstead Act.

Another is the damage caused to the very fabric of society, as men turn in their brothers and mothers to the authorities. Blacks are imprisoned at a very high rate, and as fragile as the black family is, things are made far worse by the prohibition.

The Fourth Amendment has been trashed, civil forfeiture has gone crazy thanks to a counterproductive drug policy, and on and on.

http://www.leap.cc/

Thats not why prohibition was repealed and an increase in violent crime during prohibition is a myth

But when put to the test of modern policy analysis, the American experience of alcohol prohibition provides no compelling evidence that legalizing modern drug markets would reduce violent crime.

The (Not So) Roaring ’20s - NYTimes.com

US Drug policy is the cause of Mexican immigration

JensB

New member

Crovax

clownboy

ocean515

Fearandloathing

How long is now?

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

Reformedfindlay

cynical class clown

Crovax

beerftw

proud ammosexual

akrunner88

Absentglare

Thoreau72

Thoreau72

ocean515

Absentglare

Mr Person

A Little Bitter

ocean515

Crovax

Crovax

Thoreau72

Crovax

Absentglare

Thoreau72

Crovax