Mexico dissolves its FBI and moves to legalize drugs

[plank white]

Thoughts?

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/07/31/mexico-dissolves-its-fbi-and-moves-to-legalize-drugs/

Who knows ? I think it may work it would definatly put a stop to alot of corruption among officials since they wouldnt need to be paid off etc.

[Guest bkelm18]

Well I suppose it can't get much worse.

[gjohnsoniv]

^ What he said.

[Guest adurbin]

Hell, at the very least it would be a good science project/example as to how legalizing drugs doesn't work. Legalizing it only leads to more production, more flow into the states. More people robbing and pillaging to get money to pay for their fix. But, I digress. It's not as if Mexico is even putting a dent in their problem as well. Wonder if those bags of coke will be required to have "made in Mexico" stickers on them.

[Oh Shoot]

...Wonder if those bags of coke will be required to have "made in Mexico" stickers on them.

Nah, Mexico imports it before sending it along.

Guess they'd have to label their own weed, though.

- OS

Edited August 1, 2012 by OhShoot

[Chucktshoes]

Time to seriously look at doing something similar here. I can't put it any more simply than this, prohibition does not work. It never has, and it never will.

[Guest drv2fst]

Maybe we can follow their lead. More freedom, less government, win/win. I'm not a drug user but prohibition isn't working out very well, and it is really expensive.

[plank white]

Ha wander if gas stations will have these if they do go through with it

Edited August 1, 2012 by plank white

[TMF]

Thoughts?

http://www.calwatchd...legalize-drugs/

Who knows ? I think it may work it would definatly put a stop to alot of corruption among officials since they wouldnt need to be paid off etc.

I could care less about how corrupt Mexico is or how they intend to control it. Legalizing the activity of the cartels may lower violence in Mexico towards citizens and government, but it will not slow the violence between the cartels. It will also speed up trafficking over our borders and increase violence on our side when state and federal law enforcement interdict the traffickers. This just shows that Mexico will not be cooperating with us the way they have in the past to target the traffickers. Drug trafficking doesn't cause violence in Mexico because of the drug trade in Mexico; it is because of the drug trade in the US.

Even if Mexico legalized all narcs and weed tomorrow it wouldn't have an impact on the border violence. Even if private industry moved in to handle shipments from S. America, refinement and growing of marijuana there would still be the traffickers fighting over who gets what shipping lanes to bring it over the border. By legalizing it the industry on the border will grow, causing more violence on both sides making it very dangerous for our LE to target traffickers, and it will lower the street value of drugs as the market is flooded. No, I don't think this will have any positive impact at all on either side of the border. It wouldn't be such a problem if we used our available assets to close the border off and to engage traffickers on sight. Since that will not happen at least we can enjoy a drop in weed prices.

[analog_kidd]

So, let me get this straight, Mexico keeps calling for us to tighten our gun control because guns are bad, but they now think it is OK to legalize their own drugs. OoooKayyy

[Dolomite_supafly]

I think majijuana should be legalized. There are benefits to it for those with medical problems as well as the fact as it is not any worse than alcohol or tobacco.

And people scream "it is a gateway drug" but the reason why is the same guy who selling marijuana now, because it is illegal, is also selling harder illegal drugs. This exposes the marijuana smokers to harder drugs when the dealer says he is out of MJ but has heroin. If MJ was sold in a gas station then the MJ users would never meet the seller of other more hardcore drugs.

I have never smoked MJ but I have read a lot of the medical benefits of it because of my problems. I would like to have it as an option.

Then there is the belief that I do not need someone else to tell me what is not good for me. I should be allowed to ingest anything I want so long as it doesn't impact anyone else. And if it does impact anybody else then hold me accountable and not the MJ.

Dolomite

[DaveTN]

This should come as no surprise. You notice he says he is open to “Debate in the strategy in the way we fight drug traffickingâ€. That is code for “We will now be open with our government corruption, this will be about who will pay us more, the U.S. or the cartelsâ€.

And yes, they act appalled that we let some guns cross the border.

This won’t end well for anyone…… except the corrupt government officials and the cartels.

[sigmtnman]

Maybe they studied our period of prohibition and realized it failed and fueled violence. The problem though, is that until we do something similar to remove the black market here, their cartels will still have a big market in the states.

People need to realize that we have laws against violence already, regardless of the reason. Having laws telling people what drug they can or can't use is no different than telling gun owners what kind of guns and ammo they can and can't have. Consider gunbuster signs... The criminals will carry past them regardless and drug laws are no different.

Drug laws will never be repealed here because they generate lots of $$$$. It has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that making objects illegal creates a lucrative black market for them and/or causes something else to be created or found to take it's place.

[Guest nysos]

Portugal legalized (or decriminalized, I forget which) drugs 10 years ago and it is working fine for them. Instead of having to fear going to prison, they are offered rehabilitation. It still takes government money to do it, but I rather someone be rehabilitated and go back into society with the aims of being more productive vs sitting in a jail for a few years. I recall seeing a fairly long news special on the subject and one of the people interviewed worked in the department that helped the people get rehabilitation, etc. He said they look at drug abusers as a disease and treat it as such. If someone is sick, that doesn't mean you should lock them up in jail, you should get them the help they need.

Now that is with the mindset of the hardcore drug users that can't even take care of themselves. I look at it as no different than alcohol abuse. Not everyone that drinks abuses alcohol - it is a small percentage that does. I believe certain drugs like marijuana should be regulated the same way, treat it as a controlled substance but legal. I don't believe anything like meth should get the same sort of treatment though. If people are willing to put meth into their system they should probably just go drink some turpentine, it is probably going to do the same thing just much much faster.

[RobertNashville]

There aren't many things that would be more stupid than legalizing drugs although in Mexico's instance, the drug thugs were pretty much in control and it was effectively "legal" anyway I suppose.

Mexico and quite a few other countries in Central and Sough America need some democratic revolution similar to our own from England...I don't expect it to happen but that's what they need.

[Caster]

Legalizing hard drugs will cost a lot of families their children as access becomes easier. BUT, that's natural selection at work. Not always palatable but something I believe in. I think they should have legalized weed a long time ago. It's ten times less destructive than alcohol. Drunks wanna fight and act stupid. Stoners want to eat, sleep, have sex or watch cartoons. I haven't in in over ten years and likely never will again. BUT, the commercials they put out are BS. No one smokes a joint and runs over a kid. Ever rode with a guy that's high? Seat belt on, head lights on, eyes on the road, proper turn signals, always looking for the cops while softly chanting "45, stay alive, they's a cop out there I know it." Not even 46MPH in a 45 zone.

THe relief it give people in severe pain is incredible. THe only hell I ever seen a stoner raise is when he don't get his waffle in a hurry while he's playing Gin Rummy at the Waffle house at 3AM.

You can't OD on it. I'd even go so far to say it'd be even safer if legalized because the FDA would become involved. No more worries that it might have something ELSE in it.

If it were legalized I'd certainly pursue a prescription with my back, neck and shoulder injuries I deal with. It's a heck of a lot less destructive than them godawful pills that eat up your stomach and liver.

[Guest nysos]

Legalizing hard drugs will cost a lot of families their children as access becomes easier. BUT, that's natural selection at work. Not always palatable but something I believe in. I think they should have legalized weed a long time ago. It's ten times less destructive than alcohol. Drunks wanna fight and act stupid. Stoners want to eat, sleep, have sex or watch cartoons. I haven't in in over ten years and likely never will again. BUT, the commercials they put out are BS. No one smokes a joint and runs over a kid. Ever rode with a guy that's high? Seat belt on, head lights on, eyes on the road, proper turn signals, always looking for the cops while softly chanting "45, stay alive, they's a cop out there I know it." Not even 46MPH in a 45 zone.

THe relief it give people in severe pain is incredible. THe only hell I ever seen a stoner raise is when he don't get his waffle in a hurry while he's playing Gin Rummy at the Waffle house at 3AM.

You can't OD on it. I'd even go so far to say it'd be even safer if legalized because the FDA would become involved. No more worries that it might have something ELSE in it.

If it were legalized I'd certainly pursue a prescription with my back, neck and shoulder injuries I deal with. It's a heck of a lot less destructive than them godawful pills that eat up your stomach and liver.

As with anything, moderation. Too much alcohol will kill your liver, but no one will bat an eye if you say you are going home after work and having a beer. I feel that MJ should be regulated like alcohol, no smoking/driving - etc. It would require a new set of state laws for LEOs to go by, but why not? The government would get money out of it from taxes as well. If done properly I don't see how it is a losing proposition.

[Dolomite_supafly]

A little bit of a change of subject.

How would we get a vote on legalizing it started? I suspect if put up for a statewide vote it would pass.

I would love to find something to helps issues. I have even spoke to my doctor about moving to a place better suited to my medical issues.

Dolomite

[Caster]

A little bit of a change of subject.

How would we get a vote on legalizing it started? I suspect if put up for a statewide vote it would pass.

I would love to find something to helps issues. I have even spoke to my doctor about moving to a place better suited to my medical issues.

Dolomite

Funny thing about it, It doesn't take away the pain. It does let you deal with it. Quite nicely depending on the strength. I don't trust ANYTHING that takes the pain away [save for the healing hand of Jesus Christ] because pain is there for a reason. If my pain were gone, I'd be in worse shape. It's what keeps me from destroying what's left of my spine.

[piercedan]

Then there is the belief that I do not need someone else to tell me what is not good for me. I should be allowed to ingest anything I want so long as it doesn't impact anyone else. And if it does impact anybody else then hold me accountable and not the MJ.

Dolomite

Exactly. Well said.

Edited August 1, 2012 by piercedan

[piercedan]

As with anything, moderation. Too much alcohol will kill your liver, but no one will bat an eye if you say you are going home after work and having a beer. I feel that MJ should be regulated like alcohol, no smoking/driving - etc. It would require a new set of state laws for LEOs to go by, but why not? The government would get money out of it from taxes as well. If done properly I don't see how it is a losing proposition.

I don't really thing the laws would have to be modified too much. An LEO has to build probable cause to stop a vehicle, i.e. erratic driving. Once stopped, he continues to build probable cause with various detection methods such as divided attention questions, coordination observations, odor detection, etc. Once enough PC is established, a field sobriety test is administered. If it's a pass, then "carry on citizen". If it is a fail, then a BAT can be administered to detect intoxicants. Either way, the presence of THC or its decay elements don't automatically indicate intoxication, especially since it sticks around in the system long after the effects have dissipated. It is the presence in conjunction with all other PC and the failure of an FST that indicate impaired driving.

Is it fool proof? No. I've known cops who can pass an FST with flying colors when three sheets to the wind. (Except Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, there is no control over that.) But that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[tnhawk]

If ya can't beat them, join them! Sounds like a good way to run a government.

[DaveTN]

This isn’t about legalizing pot. It’s about cocaine, heroin and pot. It isn’t about telling people they can’t have drugs, it’s about protecting ourselves and our families from those that would do anything to get their next fix.

If some think that a person killing themselves is natural selection at work, I doubt they will feel that way when the next generation of crack heads kills their wife or kid in a robbery to support their drug habit.

You can legalize all the drugs you want, but employers will still do drug screening and fire those that test positive. They aren’t going to accept drugs in the workplace. It would just be another blow to our manufacturing base.

I hope all those that have a job are ready for their taxes to skyrocket to pay for all the new prisons we will need for all our new entries into the drug culture.

Its time to repeal Posse Comitias and use our military to secure our borders. Either that or we are going to have to pay a bunch more money for more cops and Border Patrol.

[sigmtnman]

This isn’t about legalizing pot. It’s about cocaine, heroin and pot. It isn’t about telling people they can’t have drugs, it’s about protecting ourselves and our families from those that would do anything to get their next fix.

...

Similar to the argument that all we really need is a bolt action rifle. Semi-autos are not really needed. It's easy to regulate other folks activities.

[piercedan]

There is a distinction between the different drugs and some are inherently more dangerous to people and damaging to society. I don't think giving carte blanche for all drugs is necessarily the right answer, but revisiting the legality of marijuana is probably an idea that is past due.

People with addiction issues already perpetrate crimes or engage in destructive behavior to get their next fix, be it drugs, gambling, sex, whatever. I think the argument of higher taxes for prisons is mute because we already are paying for incarcerating enormous numbers of people for minor drug charges like marijuana possession. Not to mention the dollars that go to support our militarization of the police force in the "war" on drugs. This is a slippery slope argument.