Mexico dissolves its FBI and moves to legalize drugs

[RobertNashville]

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.

A little while ago I almost posted something very similar to these thoughts...I had even written it out but decided that I didn't need the headache it would likely cause me coming from all those who would think that I wasn't enlightened enough to understand why legalizing drugs would be a good thing.

Edited August 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[plank white]

I personally am more of a libertarian now than I have ever been and though I dont smoke Marijuana if it were legal I would look more into the supposed cure/helpfullness towards cancer for my mother other than that if it were legal as well as other drugs I dont see it affecting me personally its not like I would go try cocain , crack , heroin, meth etc.I think a hell of alot of federal agents would be out of work and alot of convicted felons would be able to aplly to have there rights restored and Personally I think those are great . If someone is an addict now they arent stopped by the law at all in the pursuit of the favorite drug however with the stuff illegal alot of the addicted are basically slaves to there local drug dealers . and that would stop aswell either way I live my life how I choose and I dont like telling others what they can and cant do etc. who knows maybe it would be good maybe not Im sure it wouldnt be peachy either way but the system sure isnt peachy now and is way past the point of being broken.

Edited August 1, 2012 by plank white

[RobertNashville]

...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...

I doubt that is accuarte...in most (and maybe all) states, simple possession of marijuana is no more serious than a speeding ticket.

I've no problem with marijuana being legal to distribute as a prescription drug to be used for medical purposes; other than that I don't see a rational for change.

[TMF]

Either way this is bad for us. If Mexico legalizes it then we have lost any ability to control it from their side of the border. The trafficking will still be illegal, therefore the cartels will still be armed, only now they'll be able to run more which means they'll be less concerned with run-ins with LE. This will translate to more violence on our side. More traffickers=more violence.

[sigmtnman]

Someone please explain how regulating guns/ammo is different than regulating drugs.

If a person is for having pot regulated for medicinal uses only, is the same person ok with having a license for a gun and a permit to buy ammo?

If a person is only for allowing pot to be decriminalized, would you also agree that you only really need a .22lr in a bolt action, since the ARK-1547 and 9mm glocks are killers?

Freedom comes with responsibilities and consequences.

Edited August 1, 2012 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

A little while ago I almost posted something very similar to these thoughts...I had even written it out but decided that I didn't need the headache it would likely cause me coming from all those who would think that I wasn't enlightened enough to understand why legalizing drugs would be a good thing.

This adds what to the discussion?

[plank white]

Either way this is bad for us. If Mexico legalizes it then we have lost any ability to control it from their side of the border. The trafficking will still be illegal, therefore the cartels will still be armed, only now they'll be able to run more which means they'll be less concerned with run-ins with LE. This will translate to more violence on our side. More traffickers=more violence.

I can see this ..I can imagine it would be good for Mexico in terms of crime rate and corruption there, and not so good for us who knows though maybe it will help them out and we wont have so many people illegally coming here if Mexico turns out to be a better place . I guess they arent factoring in how or if it will affect us, They gotta look out for Numero Uno first Maybe it wont be so great for them either but I cant see how it can make it any worse there.

[TMF]

My translation of this is that Mexicans are tired of the drug war. They would much rather the cartels control things than there be daily violence which is the attitude of weak people and they deserve to be under the thumb of the cartel. This has nothing to do with liberties of the Mexican people to use drugs recreationally.

Legalization in Mexico would ramp up the border violence for sure. Conversely, if we legalized drugs here it would put the cartels out of business, but who cares? F*** Mexico. I can't look into a crystal ball and tell whether or not legalizing narcs and weed would be better or worse, but I know better security on the border would make the point moot. We have the tools. We choose not to use them and then neuter our LEOs on the border who are doing the best they can.

The best that will come of this could be that the increase in trafficking and border violence will change Americans' opinion on border security. Between now and then I wouldn't want to be a border agent.

[Caster]

F*** Mexico. I can't look into a crystal ball and tell whether or not legalizing narcs and weed would be better or worse, but I know better security on the border would make the point moot. We have the tools. We choose not to use them and then neuter our LEOs on the border who are doing the best they can.

Yep, I been saying it for a long time now. One Marine for every yard length of border we have. Play a nice game of "Whacka Mexican-Mole" . When they cross, drive them back or kill them. Use your best judgement. If the cartels start shooting back, just call in coordinates. Artillery is standing by.

Why won't they do it? Are they afraid of a war with mexico? There's enough capable men on the Metro Davidson Police Department to wipe out the messicans. The cartels on the other hand are nothing more than terrorists. Our Army and Marines are REALLY good at dealing with terrorists who wanna have an old western style shoot out.

[RobertNashville]

This adds what to the discussion?

Nothing I suppose; is that a problem?

I frequently see posts from members who basically quote another member's post in total and gives a thumbs up or something to show agreement. That's pretty much what I did there...I suppose one of the reasons I did was because I don't agree with DaveTN very often.

Edited August 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Caster]

THE MEXICAN SOLUTION

Edited August 1, 2012 by Caster

[strickj]

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.

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.

I agree with both statements

I never quite understood why people think legalizing drugs will somehow make the drug cartel's, cooks, gangs and dealers to give up their multimillion dollar trade.

I also do not understand the comparison to alcohol probation. Never met an alcoholic that became hooked after one Long Island

And before I get slammed here, marijuana is different than heroin or other harsh drugs. I think marijuana has already been legal in Mexico for sometime now.

[strickj]

I think marijuana has already been legal in Mexico for sometime now.

Did some quick research.

Seems all drugs have been legal in Mexico since 2008(?).

The AFI was created to fight government corruption and violence from cartels and traffickers.

[RobertNashville]

Someone please explain how regulating guns/ammo is different than regulating drugs.

If a person is for having pot regulated for medicinal uses only, is the same person ok with having a license for a gun and a permit to buy ammo?

If a person is only for allowing pot to be decriminalized, would you also agree that you only really need a .22lr in a bolt action, since the ARK-1547 and 9mm glocks are killers?

Freedom comes with responsibilities and consequences.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right recognized by and plainly stated in the Constitution that specifically says it shall not be infringed; I don't see anything like that with regard to narcotics.

On a perhaps more practical/societal level; one can own and/or use firearms without ever harming himself or anyone else around him and in fact, they can and often are used for very positive purposes (protection, hunting, sport/enjoyment, etc).

I suspect that you would be very hard pressed to cite many examples where long-term use of narcotics had anything close to a positive impact on the user. However, if that was as far as it went (i.e. only impacting the user) I'd probably be okay with people destroying their minds with whatever drug they wanted....the problem is, it doesn't stop there. Show me a long-term user and you'll almost always find that the person didn't just destroy his own life but severely negatively impacted those around him as well as society as the addict victimizes others to support his addiction.

People should be free to do pretty much anything they want to do but when their freedoms starts impacting/infringing on the freedoms of others, it is reasonable for the state to inject itself into the issue...some might even say the state has a duty to do so.

[Oh Shoot]

....I think marijuana has already been legal in Mexico for sometime now.

Sort of. Possession of small x amounts are decriminalized, and not just pot, but coke, heroin, and meth, too.

Still illegal to sell any amount though.

- OS

[Caster]

Sort of. Possession of small x amounts are decriminalized, and not just pot, but coke, heroin, and meth, too.

Still illegal to sell any amount though.

- OS

They're just sick of arresting people for a joint.

[piercedan]

I suspect that you would be very hard pressed to cite many examples where long-term use of narcotics had anything close to a positive impact on the user. However, if that was as far as it went (i.e. only impacting the user) I'd probably be okay with people destroying their minds with whatever drug they wanted....the problem is, it doesn't stop there. Show me a long-term user and you'll almost always find that the person didn't just destroy his own life but severely negatively impacted those around him as well as society as the addict victimizes others to support his addiction.

If you are talking about narcotics, then I can see your argument. They do have some beneficial uses medically, but long term use and abuse can cause issues as you indicate. However, I've got several examples of successful people who are long term users of MJ who are upstanding citizens with solid families and commendable work histories. Some in my immediate family. The positive aspect is much like unwinding with a couple of beers, enhancing overall enjoyment with life.

I think this thread is following divergent but related lines of reasoning. I agree with the people who've identified potential border trouble escalations resulting from a f**k it attitude held by Mexico. It is going to take a political resolve to address our borders, but of course, party politics and a muddled, distorted view of the issue will probably continue to prevent this.

[RobertNashville]

If you are talking about narcotics, then I can see your argument....

I thought I was pretty clear that I'm talking about narcotics...I've said at least once in this thread that I don't care about marijuana

[piercedan]

I doubt that is accuarte...in most (and maybe all) states, simple possession of marijuana is no more serious than a speeding ticket.

I've no problem with marijuana being legal to distribute as a prescription drug to be used for medical purposes; other than that I don't see a rational for change.

http://norml.org/laws/penalties/item/tennessee-penalties-2

Not only is it more serious than a ticket monetarily, but there is a real chance of jail time or probation. Also, I have direct knowledge of a friend who was caught smoking a J but had very little on him. He was arrested, transported, and jailed for a few hours. Ultimately it cost his job and more than $2000 in fines and fees. First offense.

As for the rational, why not? Alcohol is a much more dangerous and destructive drug. If it is okay for public consumption, then so too marijuana. If it is my body, so to speak, and I am not harming anyone, why not? At home, on my couch, why is it the governments business? I'm a disabled vet injured in the line of duty. I have constant pain that causes sleepless nights and loss of locomotion. I use motrin or tylenol to help with pain, but from direct experience MJ helps tolerate it much better and adds to quality of life. I don't use anymore, but if it was an option for my doctor to offer, I would. Because it works. He did prescribe marinol, which is a synthetic alternative. It sucked, didn't really work unless I doubled up, but at $400 per month, uh no thanks.

[piercedan]

I thought I was pretty clear that I'm talking about narcotics...I've said at least once in this thread that I don't care about marijuana

:0) Ok, I'm following. This thread has several different but related angles.

[RobertNashville]

Not only is it more serious than a ticket monetarily, but there is a real chance of jail time or probation. Also, I have direct knowledge of a friend who was caught smoking a J but had very little on him. He was arrested, transported, and jailed for a few hours. Ultimately it cost his job and more than $2000 in fines and fees. First offense.

In the post I replied to, you had indicated that there were a lot of people incarcerated for "minor" drug charges..."minor" usually indicates a misdemeanor and people generally don't spend a lot of time incarcerated for a misdemeanor...your friend's experience sort of bears that out. Also, a traffic ticket can easily land you in jail for a few hours (just like your friend) and easily cost you more than a couple grand (just like your friend) and I KNOW that to be true (and that's as much as I'm going to say about that here).

As for the rational, why not? Alcohol is a much more dangerous and destructive drug. If it is okay for public consumption, then so too marijuana. If it is my body, so to speak, and I am not harming anyone, why not? At home, on my couch, why is it the governments business? I'm a disabled vet injured in the line of duty. I have constant pain that causes sleepless nights and loss of locomotion. I use motrin or tylenol to help with pain, but from direct experience MJ helps tolerate it much better and adds to quality of life. I don't use anymore, but if it was an option for my doctor to offer, I would. Because it works. He did prescribe marinol, which is a synthetic alternative. It sucked, didn't really work unless I doubled up, but at $400 per month, uh no thanks.

I appreciate your service and I'm sorry about your injury.

I've hear various and contradictory things about marijuana's medicinal value...I don't know who is right and who is wrong but if it were completely legalized tomorrow (treated the same as alcohol) or could be distributed as a prescription it would be fine with me.

[sigmtnman]

The right to keep and bear arms is a right recognized by and plainly stated in the Constitution that specifically says it shall not be infringed; I don't see anything like that with regard to narcotics.

...

It is right in the Bill of Rights, which by the way were never intended to be exhaustive:

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

...

On a perhaps more practical/societal level; one can own and/or use firearms without ever harming himself or anyone else around him and in fact, they can and often are used for very positive purposes (protection, hunting, sport/enjoyment, etc).

...

Your post is every bit from your perspective, which is fine, but understand that there are people who do not agree with the previous statement and that is why we have onerous regulation of guns and weapons.

...

I suspect that you would be very hard pressed to cite many examples where long-term use of narcotics had anything close to a positive impact on the user. However, if that was as far as it went (i.e. only impacting the user) I'd probably be okay with people destroying their minds with whatever drug they wanted....the problem is, it doesn't stop there. Show me a long-term user and you'll almost always find that the person didn't just destroy his own life but severely negatively impacted those around him as well as society as the addict victimizes others to support his addiction.

...

Long term occasional use would be no different than long term occasional use of liqueur. Anything taken to extremes can be destructive but it is not the governments job to protect people from themselves. The decriminalization would lead to a free market, which would theoretically reduce street prices and in turn be similar to alcohol or tobacco. Sure there will always be thieves but there are laws to deal with theft. There will always be murders and there are laws to deal with that. Going after the drug is no different than going after the gun/ammo.

...

People should be free to do pretty much anything they want to do but when their freedoms starts impacting/infringing on the freedoms of others, it is reasonable for the state to inject itself into the issue...some might even say the state has a duty to do so.

How does an individual consuming a drug in privacy impact or infringe on your freedom? Sure the States should have the right to regulate drugs as they see fit, not the federal government though.

Edited August 1, 2012 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

FYI, the DEA budget alone was just over 2 billion in 2011. I wonder what total expenditures are for all aspects of enforcement, legal/judicial and jail/prison/parole.

I'm getting robbed by the government to fund that. More gubbmint dole.

[RobertNashville]

It is right in the Bill of Rights, which by the way were never intended to be exhaustive:

I didn’t say it was exhaustive but there is still, at the moment, noting in it about narcotics use being a right.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Yuup....that's what it says...did this thread turn into a State’s rights issue and I missed it? I thought we were just discussing the overall concept of whether drug use should or shouldn't be legal/regulated, not the specifics of who has/should/has the right to issue regulations.

Your post is every bit from your perspective, which is fine, but understand that there are people who do not agree with the previous statement and that is why we have onerous regulation of guns and weapons.

We are wrong to have most regulations on arms; that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have regulations on narcotics.

Long term occasional use would be no different than long term occasional use of liqueur. Anything taken to extremes can be destructive but it is not the governments job to protect people from themselves. The decriminalization would lead to a free market, which would theoretically reduce street prices and in turn be similar to alcohol or tobacco. Sure there will always be thieves but there are laws to deal with theft. There will always be murders and there are laws to deal with that.

Alcohol abuse and addiction is pretty damn bad. On the other hand, I haven’t found any stats to show that we have a lot of alcoholics victimizing innocent people to support their habit.

• In 2002 in the U.S. about a quarter of convicted property offenders in local jails had committed their crimes to get money for drugs…among State prisoners in 2004 the pattern was similar, with property (30%) offenders committing their crimes for drug money.
  

• In Federal prisons property offenders (11%) were less than half as likely as drug offenders (25%) to report drug money as a motive in their offenses.
  

• In 2004, 17% of U.S. State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs.
  

There is little that is similar about occasional long-term use of liquor and long-term use of narcotics because it is possible and most people do drink alcohol and aren't alcoholics. While I don't have time to look up the stats, if memory serves, narcotic users are fare more likely to become addicted and addiction is where most of the problems really begin.

The part about the free market coming into play is nice but all conjecture...I could just as easily say that wilder availability of narcotics will lead to fare more addicts...addicts have a difficult time keeping a job and tend to not have a lot of money so even if drugs become less expensive it doesn't mena they'll have the money to pay for them which means they'll find other ways to get it...other ways that usually hurt other people.

Going after the drug is no different than going after the gun/ammo.

Yes there is, one is a protected right; the other isn't.

How does an individual consuming a drug in privacy impact or infringe on your freedom? Sure the States should have the right to regulate drugs as they see fit, not the federal government though.

if it is always and only "private" they don't...the infringement happens when it doesn't stay "private" and it happens enough that for the benefit of society I believe narcotics must and shoudl be illegal whether it's the Stat or the Fed or both who does it.

My freedom is impacted when drug users commit more crime to get money to feed their habit...or because they can't hold a job and take my taxes in the form of welfare or cause my health insurance rates to go up because they need more medical care and can't pay for it or because my taxes have to go to pay for the prisons that house them after they've committed their crimes to obtain money for their drugs.

Edited August 1, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I see the Tenth Amendment connection, also. Much like the infringement done by the tax placed on certain weapons

after 1934 et seq. The problem I see with any drug issue is it has become engrained in business, politics, more business,

illicit business and more politics because of the powers that be want to retain that power and money flow.

Kinda reminds me of a certain drug in "Brave New World". One primary drug that the government controlled. Been a while

since I read it, but something like that.