• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton: US shares blame for Mexican drug wars

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
8,994
Reaction score
8,955
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
MEXICO CITY – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that America's "insatiable" demand for illegal drugs and inability to stop weapons smuggling into Mexico are fueling an alarming spike in violence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade," she said. "Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians."

Source

That's right Hillary, blame the users for the very problems that politicians like you have caused with your prohibitionist policies. Ignore the reality that these wars and violent drug cartels exist because of the War on Drugs, not in spite of it. Case in point: How many violent alcohol gangs are there? Have you ever heard of a violent tobacco cartel? Is anyone fighting any caffeine wars? No. But the significance of that fact is completely lost on prohibitionists like Hillary. No, it's the users who are at fault for the violence that follows illicit drugs. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with dogmatic policies that send the trade into the black market and have clearly been shown to be a failure both in the past as well as for the last 30 years. :roll:
 
Source

That's right Hillary, blame the users for the very problems that politicians like you have caused with your prohibitionist policies. Ignore the reality that these wars and violent drug cartels exist because of the War on Drugs, not in spite of it. Case in point: How many violent alcohol gangs are there? Have you ever heard of a violent tobacco cartel? Is anyone fighting any caffeine wars? No. But the significance of that fact is completely lost on prohibitionists like Hillary. No, it's the users who are at fault for the violence that follows illicit drugs. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with dogmatic policies that send the trade into the black market and have clearly been shown to be a failure both in the past as well as for the last 30 years. :roll:

I don't know. It sounds to me like she's making a precursor argument for ending the war on drugs. the use of the word "insatiable" implies that trying to prevent it is fruitless.
 
I don't know. It sounds to me like she's making a precursor argument for ending the war on drugs. the use of the word "insatiable" implies that trying to prevent it is fruitless.

Any time a politician talks about the "demand for drugs" as a cause of the violence, it's usually a safe bet that they favor draconian enforcement to continue this idiocy.
 
Shares the blame? that is the understatement of the week. Is the blame, it is our Drug War that we have imposed on the rest of the world. This is the driving force on the black market and the immense fortunes to be had that is the cause of the crisis. The Drug war is the only thing to blame, nothing to share there.

As I am typing this Jack Cafferty is asking a poignant question on TV on the subject:

"What should be done about the fact that the Mexican drug cartels are now operating in 230 American cities?"

had to detour mid post to go submit my thoughts on the matter to him.


Hillary is still walking a tightrope on this subject, perhaps "insatiable" is acquiescence to the fact that our war is failed, but I do not think she, nor the Obama administration are ready to pick up this political hot potato with all the others they are already juggling. I could be wrong, in fact I hope I am.

On another related note here, Welcome to the White House is asking people to submit questions, and the president will answer the most popular questions tomorrow morning. So far in several categories the legalization question in one form or other is the top question in popularity. I have a feeling they will not be addressed, or if they are it will be a quick dismissive answer. Again I hope I am wrong here.
 
Last edited:
Any time a politician talks about the "demand for drugs" as a cause of the violence, it's usually a safe bet that they favor draconian enforcement to continue this idiocy.

I don't know. Right now, because they are illegal, the money only goes to criminals. If legalized, there wouldn't be the violent criminal element.

So it is true that the demand for illegal drugs is a cause of violence. If legalized, there would be no more demand for Illegal drugs, and thus an end to much of the violence because the criminals would cease to receive funding from their criminal enterprise.

Then legal manufacturers would exist, and they would not have need of violence to protect their enterprise.

Teh fact that "illegal" is a part of the statement gives me pause on my judgment against the statement.
 
Source

That's right Hillary, blame the users for the very problems that politicians like you have caused with your prohibitionist policies. Ignore the reality that these wars and violent drug cartels exist because of the War on Drugs, not in spite of it. Case in point: How many violent alcohol gangs are there? Have you ever heard of a violent tobacco cartel? Is anyone fighting any caffeine wars? No. But the significance of that fact is completely lost on prohibitionists like Hillary. No, it's the users who are at fault for the violence that follows illicit drugs. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with dogmatic policies that send the trade into the black market and have clearly been shown to be a failure both in the past as well as for the last 30 years. :roll:

I completely agree. Prohibition is absolutely the cause of nearly 100% of the violence associated with drugs. Interestingly, there WERE violent alcohol gangs during Prohibition. They were called the mafia. If there had been no Prohibition (and later, no war on drugs) they never would've gained a foothold in the United States.
 
Shares the blame? that is the understatement of the week. Is the blame, it is our Drug War that we have imposed on the rest of the world. This is the driving force on the black market and the immense fortunes to be had that is the cause of the crisis. The Drug war is the only thing to blame, nothing to share there.

As I am typing this Jack Cafferty is asking a poignant question on TV on the subject:

"What should be done about the fact that the Mexican drug cartels are now operating in 230 American cities?"

had to detour mid post to go submit my thoughts on the matter to him.


Hillary is still walking a tightrope on this subject, perhaps "insatiable" is acquiescence to the fact that our war is failed, but I do not think she, nor the Obama administration are ready to pick up this political hot potato with all the others they are already juggling. I could be wrong, in fact I hope I am.

On another related note here, Welcome to the White House is asking people to submit questions, and the president will answer the most popular questions tomorrow morning. So far in several categories the legalization question in one form or other is the top question in popularity. I have a feeling they will not be addressed, or if they are it will be a quick dismissive answer. Again I hope I am wrong here.


If the Drug Cartel is running out of 230 cities, then that only reinforces the idea that the Cartel is both operating as capitalists and kicking the living hell out of the DEA, and other crusaders; not to mention, it shows Americas love for drugs.

I guess in an economy where you are taught the "American Dream", and when you strive you will succeed, and a bottom feeder, through hard work, can rise above the rest of the bottom-feeders that when you see your income dwindle, and when you see the very heart of our economy become immediate criminals, and when television is full of tv shows with 'roid heads banging an hour-glass.... then drugs do make a whole lot of sense.

We should be doing what we do the best...
ruin the capitalist ventures of the Drug Cartel; make it legal.
 
If the Drug Cartel is running out of 230 cities, then that only reinforces the idea that the Cartel is both operating as capitalists and kicking the living hell out of the DEA, and other crusaders; not to mention, it shows Americas love for drugs.

I guess in an economy where you are taught the "American Dream", and when you strive you will succeed, and a bottom feeder, through hard work, can rise above the rest of the bottom-feeders that when you see your income dwindle, and when you see the very heart of our economy become immediate criminals, and when television is full of tv shows with 'roid heads banging an hour-glass.... then drugs do make a whole lot of sense.

We should be doing what we do the best...
ruin the capitalist ventures of the Drug Cartel; make it legal.

There is no doubt someone is going to make some money off of this.

"Congress has approved only $700 million of the $950 million that the Bush administration requested for the program since it began last year"
 
Source

That's right Hillary, blame the users for the very problems that politicians like you have caused with your prohibitionist policies. Ignore the reality that these wars and violent drug cartels exist because of the War on Drugs, not in spite of it. Case in point: How many violent alcohol gangs are there? Have you ever heard of a violent tobacco cartel? Is anyone fighting any caffeine wars? No. But the significance of that fact is completely lost on prohibitionists like Hillary. No, it's the users who are at fault for the violence that follows illicit drugs. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with dogmatic policies that send the trade into the black market and have clearly been shown to be a failure both in the past as well as for the last 30 years. :roll:


Depends on how you define violence.

Cause of death is pretty good.

Tobacco 435,0001
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,0001
Alcohol 85,000 1


Annual Causes of Death in the United States

The mexican drug war has claimed 7337 lives so far. Not quite 2%


The tobacco/alcohol Cartels are 98% more dangerous than any set of maniacs with guns roaming the streets.

No one is forcing anyone to smoke or drink. It is the users lack of self control as much as anything else.
 
Depends on how you define violence.

Cause of death is pretty good.

Tobacco 435,0001
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,0001
Alcohol 85,000 1


Annual Causes of Death in the United States

The mexican drug war has claimed 7337 lives so far. Not quite 2%


The tobacco/alcohol Cartels are 98% more dangerous than any set of maniacs with guns roaming the streets.

No one is forcing anyone to smoke or drink. It is the users lack of self control as much as anything else.

We have to accept humanity, and all of it's fallacies, or not at all.
 
Depends on how you define violence.

Cause of death is pretty good.

Tobacco 435,0001
Poor Diet and Physical Inactivity 365,0001
Alcohol 85,000 1


Annual Causes of Death in the United States

The mexican drug war has claimed 7337 lives so far. Not quite 2%


The tobacco/alcohol Cartels are 98% more dangerous than any set of maniacs with guns roaming the streets.

No one is forcing anyone to smoke or drink. It is the users lack of self control as much as anything else.
i would suspect than that if illegal drugs were legalized we would see a huge spike in drug related deaths, instead of drug war fatalities
 
i would suspect than that if illegal drugs were legalized we would see a huge spike in drug related deaths, instead of drug war fatalities

Let's examine this idea a little more closely:

1. What are the main causes of drug-related deaths unrelated to the drug war? Answer: Overdoses.

2. Why do people generally overdose? Answer: Because they misjudge how much they are taking.

3. Why do people generally misjudge how much they are taking? Answer: Because there is no reliable standard of purity in the drugs.

4. Why is there no reliable standard of purity in the drugs? Answer: Because they are sold by greedy, irresponsible criminals rather than gas stations and convenience stores.

5. Why are they sold by greedy, irresponsible criminals rather than gas stations and convenience stores? Answer: Because they are illegal.


The drug war is mostly responsible for ALL drug-related deaths, including overdoses. This is why deaths from alcohol poisoning are comparatively rare. No one buys alcohol from seedy criminals hanging out in alleys, and no one has any doubts as to the alcohol content of their drink, as it's clearly labeled on the bottle.
 
Last edited:
and yet over 500,000 people die every year from using legal, controled products similar to drugs. where will that number be after legalizing drugs
2x? 3x?
 
and yet over 500,000 people die every year from using legal, controled products similar to drugs. where will that number be after legalizing drugs
2x? 3x?

Which products are you talking about? Cigarettes? No one overdoses on cigarettes, they die after using them continuously for many decades. The main cause of death from most illegal drugs (aside from violence) is overdosing...because people don't know what they're buying and how much.
 
and yet over 500,000 people die every year from using legal, controled products similar to drugs. where will that number be after legalizing drugs
2x? 3x?

The number of deaths for people dying from using legal substances will go up slightly, simply because deaths attributed to illegal use would then be recategorized to be in this statistic.

over all drug related (from what are currently labeled illegal drugs) deaths will decrease. Both from a lowered overdose potential as kandahar explained, and even more significantly the more common cause of death -drug related violence- will virtually evaporate

2x, 3x?? please!... do we have 1/2 million or 1 million deaths a year from illegal drug abuse currently? Deaths from illegal drugs pale in comparison to tobacco related deaths alone. In the year 2000 there were 435,000 deaths attributed to tobacco alone, in the same year all illicit drug use, direct and indirect had 17,000 deaths attributed.

A bit of realism instead of unsupportable exaggerated supposition would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
and yet over 500,000 people die every year from using legal, controled products similar to drugs. where will that number be after legalizing drugs
2x? 3x?
People are dying regardless, the categorization of the deaths is irrelevant.
 
People are dying regardless, the categorization of the deaths is irrelevant.

Ahh but in these cases they are not dying regardless There is a cause of death be it lung cancer, liver failure, or the propensity to seek out bad black tar(Good will kill you just as dead).

Examples of lives cut short by a created situation. A situation that could be avoided such as smoking.
 
Last edited:
Ahh but in these cases they are not dying regardless There is a cause of death be it lung cancer, liver failure, or the propensity to seek out bad black tar(Good will kill you just as dead).

Examples of lives cut short by a created situation. A situation that could be avoided such as smoking.

A situation that is up to the individual to avoid or accept the risk inherent with their actions.

Perhaps we should argue against rock climbing, white water rafting, skydiving, surfing and skiing as well because it poses an inherent risk on ones well being based on a created situation, a situation that could be avoided.
 
People are dying regardless, the categorization of the deaths is irrelevant.

I wish the government would recognize this, if they did there would be no war on drugs.

Fact of the matter is if someone wants to waste their lives away they will do it with drugs, or spray patin in a bottle.

What's the difference? One is legal to buy, the other isn't, but the outcome is the same. Time to end the war on drugs people because if someone wants to waste their lives away they will find a way.

Kinda like if there is a ban on guns people will find a way to kill each other with bats and knives.

Prohibition DOESN'T WORK!!!!!
 
Last edited:
The number of deaths for people dying from using legal substances will go up slightly, simply because deaths attributed to illegal use would then be recategorized to be in this statistic.

over all drug related (from what are currently labeled illegal drugs) deaths will decrease. Both from a lowered overdose potential as kandahar explained, and even more significantly the more common cause of death -drug related violence- will virtually evaporate

2x, 3x?? please!... do we have 1/2 million or 1 million deaths a year from illegal drug abuse currently? Deaths from illegal drugs pale in comparison to tobacco related deaths alone. In the year 2000 there were 435,000 deaths attributed to tobacco alone, in the same year all illicit drug use, direct and indirect had 17,000 deaths attributed.

A bit of realism instead of unsupportable exaggerated supposition would be appreciated.
not like heroin and meth are good for the soul, so to speak
when it is easily accessible, and the 'illegal stigma' is taken away, I see a surge in use
more users increase the likelihood of more people dying from the drug, be it directly (OD) or indirectly (long term use affects)
that is what i am thinking about
 
not like heroin and meth are good for the soul, so to speak
when it is easily accessible, and the 'illegal stigma' is taken away, I see a surge in use
more users increase the likelihood of more people dying from the drug, be it directly (OD) or indirectly (long term use affects)
that is what i am thinking about
How can you back that up? I know that if Meth became legal, I would still go nowhere near it. As I have stated in other threads, alcohol consumption increased during prohibition. Liver cirrhosis increased. Crime increased. Children abusing alcohol doubled and they started drinking at a younger age.
 
Ahh but in these cases they are not dying regardless There is a cause of death be it lung cancer, liver failure, or the propensity to seek out bad black tar(Good will kill you just as dead).

Examples of lives cut short by a created situation. A situation that could be avoided such as smoking.
Right, but people are dying from Prozac. There is a study going on right now that has evidence suggesting Viagra can cause blindness. Legal does not equal "good for you", as some may think.
 
How can you back that up? I know that if Meth became legal, I would still go nowhere near it. As I have stated in other threads, alcohol consumption increased during prohibition. Liver cirrhosis increased. Crime increased. Children abusing alcohol doubled and they started drinking at a younger age.
considering i said "i see a surge in use" that would mean i intended it to be my opinion.
but if you can back up your assertion, or show me where you already have, i would be willing to reverse position
 
considering i said "i see a surge in use" that would mean i intended it to be my opinion.
but if you can back up your assertion, or show me where you already have, i would be willing to reverse position
Why would a surge in usage make sense? Most people still know that heroin and speed and cocaine can kill you. It's not like legalizing all drugs is going to remove the stigma from them.
 
Back
Top Bottom