• 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!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 28.3%
  • No

    Votes: 24 45.3%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 13 24.5%

  • Total voters
    53
IMHO we should do nothing for mexicos benefit
 
Could someone sue the legal meth manufacturers if their product caused death or harm?

Sure the government sued the american tobacco companies, kept the money, did nothing to help the tobacco addicts and added a horrendous tax burden on them.
 
Sure the government sued the american tobacco companies, kept the money, did nothing to help the tobacco addicts and added a horrendous tax burden on them.

No, the government sued the American tobacco companies because they lied about it. I think if meth manufactures published the dangers of meth, it would absolve them of responsibility.
 
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.
 
No, the government sued the American tobacco companies because they lied about it. I think if meth manufactures published the dangers of meth, it would absolve them of responsibility.

I am a victim. I am a tobacco addict. They lied to me, not the government. I want my money back.
 
The drain on social security by drug addicts and alcoholics is huge. They destroy their minds and bodies with illegal drugs , 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 are a lot of functioning drug addicts out there. Just because you use drugs doesn't automatically mean you can't take care of yourself.

Also, most of the drain comes from criminalizing addiction. Anyone arrested for a drug crime finds a hard time finding employment not because they are an addict but because they are an ex-convict. Decriminalize drugs, tax drugs to fund treatment programs for those drugs, and let employers hire drug users who can do the job and don't get intoxicated while working.
 
I am a victim. I am a tobacco addict. They lied to me, not the government. I want my money back.

Fine. Tobacco companies lied to tobacco addicts too. And they should pay for that.

However, if meth companies DON'T lie about the dangers then meth addicts have no cause to sue them for the dangers.
 
There are a lot of functioning drug addicts out there. Just because you use drugs doesn't automatically mean you can't take care of yourself.

Also, most of the drain comes from criminalizing addiction. Anyone arrested for a drug crime finds a hard time finding employment not because they are an addict but because they are an ex-convict. Decriminalize drugs, tax drugs to fund treatment programs for those drugs, and let employers hire drug users who can do the job and don't get intoxicated while working.

I have no problem with functioning addicts. If they can pay their own way, let er rip.
 
Fine. Tobacco companies lied to tobacco addicts too. And they should pay for that.

However, if meth companies DON'T lie about the dangers then meth addicts have no cause to sue them for the dangers.

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.
 
We already spend hundreds of billions on our military. We have the greatest military in the world. Use it and technology to secure the borders. Other countries do it.
We are wasting our military resources. We are being invaded and it's time for the military to defend our borders.

You have heard of Posse Comitatus, right?

There is no good that comes from alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs except for the therapeudic qualities of cannabis. Pot should be legalized. I see no ill effects to society from it.

Who the hell gives a crap about therapeutic qualities?

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

As in with respect to Posse Comitatus? Are you saying that you want the military involved in law enforcement activities?

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 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. :shrug:

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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
Can you provide a link?

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

600px-Homicide_rates1900-2001.jpg


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:
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.

Drugs became the crime of choice after the repeal of prohibition. What will it become after they are legalized?
Will this country be better off if they are?
 
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.

how about a graphic:

600px-Homicide_rates1900-2001.jpg


\A few important dates

1919: Volsted act alcohol prohibition begins - note what happens to the murder rate immediately after

1933: Prohibition is repealed. note the drastic downturn in the murder rate immediately after.

1971 "Drug War" begins

edit: going back and looking I see someone already provided this, I have no clue how I did not see that when I had read (and thanked) his post.
 
Last edited:
Drugs became the crime of choice after the repeal of prohibition. What will it become after they are legalized?
Will this country be better off if they are?

Not drugs.

why? do you prefer having drugs as the crime of choice? personally I would rather have criminals doing something esle and not selling drugs to kids, but that is just my preference.

edit to add: and yes the country will be better off if drugs were legal because we could deal with the drug problem instead of fighting this criminal problem. It is all about harm reduction, the harms caused by prohibition are greater than the harms of the drugs themselves.. I feel like a broken record.
 
Last edited:
Not drugs.

why do you prefer having drugs as the crime of choice? personally I would rather not have criminals selling them to kids, but meh, that is just my preference.

Just as with alcohol, drug use by children will increase exponentially when they are legalized.
 
Drugs became the crime of choice after the repeal of prohibition. What will it become after they are legalized?
Will this country be better off if they are?

I think you just proved all of our points.

Drugs may have became the crime of choice after the repeal of prohibition, but that's because drinking alcohol was no longer a crime. All of those people who drank alcohol during prohibition didn't just say to themselves, "Oh, alcohol is legal now, I guess I won't drink anymore since I'm a criminal and can only imbibe a criminal drug." Those people who drank alcohol kept drinking alcohol.

And I'm pretty sure that those who were drug addicts after prohibition were also drug addicts before prohibition. It's just that law enforcement was so focused on alcohol because it was so widespread and such a popular drug that they didn't have much of a chance to go after other intoxicants as much.

Kinda like how right now law enforcement is so busy going after marijuana that they're ignoring salvia and prescription pills.
 
Back
Top Bottom