Mexico dissolves its FBI and moves to legalize drugs

[DaveTN]

We don’t have a bunch of people in prison for minor drug charges. The popular thing to say is that you are/were in prison because of drugs. It sounds a lot better than you shot a store clerk to death while trying to get money for your next fix, or that you raped and beat a woman to death because you were so high you didn’t know what was going on.

All the arguments about legalizing drugs in this country are moot; it isn’t going to happen. You might see pot decriminalized someday, but that doesn’t mean anything will change for those that work for companies that have drug testing policies in place. It’ll just put more people in the unemployment lines, with those of us that work for a living and don’t use drugs, and American companies that still do business here paying the bills.

This is about securing our borders…. Period. The Border Patrol can’t do it now, let alone when Mexico throws in the towel and gives free rein to the cartels. This BS of not being able to use our military to protect our country is crazy. They are already on the payroll…. Let’s use them.

Edited August 1, 2012 by DaveTN

[Moped]

Legalize them and be done with it. What we are doing isn't working. I think it's time to try something else. It's a war that can't be won. Better to try and regulate it.

[strickj]

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.

Drug enforcement (federal, state and local) budgets are kinda irrelevant.

The DEA seized 339 million dollars in cash in 2005 (the last year I can provide a link) for. http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/DEA/a0706/final.pdf

They seized 210 million in Mexico City in 2008 in one raid alone.

Not included in those figures is property seizures. They seize a crap ton of vehicles, guns and even houses, which are all auctioned off.

Drug enforcement at all levels should be self sustaining or near self sustaining.

[RobertNashville]

Legalize them and be done with it. What we are doing isn't working.

I've herd that statement many times but while it sounds good it has some problems. When you say we might as well legalize it because what we are doing it isn't working, it suggests stopping what we are doing will have an insignificant impact to society. While that could be true, I don't know of any evidence to show that it might be true. I would say it's as lest as likely that legalizing drugs will result in a large negative impact to society...more drug use...more drug addicts...more crime to support the increased addictions.

Also, when you say it isn't working what is the definition of "working"?

If by working you mean that all illicit drugs haven't been kept out of the country or that all ancillary crime hasn't stopped then, I agree, it isn't working. On the other hand, you could say the very same thing about any law you care to look at. Murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, embezzlement...we have laws against all of them but we still have all those crimes being committed...should we just legalize all those crimes too?

Laws do not and cannot stop or prevent crime...we have laws to define what is a crime...to set boundaries so that society can function. If murder is so dangerous to society that it needs to be considered an illegal act then it needs to be an illegal act...If use of narcotics is so dangerous to society that it needs to be an illegal act then it needs to be an illegal act. How successful we are at stopping the crimes is irrelevant to the issue of whether it should or shouldn't be a crime.

Or put another way, you fight wars the need to be fought...you fight them to win but you don't only fight the ones you can win.

[JayC]

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.

Yeah, ll those armed robberies people are doing to get smokes and beers sure make this country an unsafe place....

The reason druggies steal is because of the high cost of drugs due to prohibition.... Make it legal and the costs go way down... The number of property thefts go way down because addicts can get gorked out of their minds for a few dollars.

How muh does a cheap pound of Colombian coffee cost? Why would a pound of coke cot anymore?

[Sea_Dog]

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

Too Funny

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

Before they go and surrender to the cartels, to get that utopia, they had better kill off a bunch of criminals first. The problem in Mexico is that it is a third world country with a perverted sense of justice. Before you get to more freedom, less government you need a strong sense of justice to let it grow. The cartels won't let that utopia happen.

I'd hate to see the US follow Mexico's lead in anything.

Edited August 2, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Dolomite_supafly]

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.

There are legitmate uses for LEGAL pain relieving narcotics and I am not talking about MJ. There are thousands upon thousands of people out there that are living better lives because of the narcotic medicines they take. I have seen shows related to this were there are 70 year old women taking a gram of opium a day and living a life they couldn't before. They are taking them as prescribed and not chasing the high.

It is those who use narcotics illegally or abuse the ones they get legally that are the problem. Because of the euphoric effects most abusers chase that and do not stop when their pain is relieved. And that is where legal users get themselves into trouble.

If you treat narcotics like any other medicine and take them as they are supposed to be used they are very effective. If a person were to only want pain relief and not chase the euphoria most narcotics are very effective. As a matter of fact probably better than anything out there.

Dolomite

[TMF]

Anyone who recreationally uses narcs isn't slowed down by the law. I would guess that people who don't use narcotics don't use them because the negative effects it would have on them personally and professionally. Speaking from experience, having smoked a lot of weed in my day I never considered using anything harder although I was frequently exposed to it. Nearly every social gathering I went to in the college years folks were using ecstasy and it wasn't uncommon for someone to have a little coke, and of course everyone had weed. I never considered the law when using marijuana, just as I never considered the law when choosing not to use the harder stuff. I don't think legalizing any of it would make folks more prone to using it as there are already social stigmas attached so the folks that will use it are the same folks that don't care about breaking the law now. I think usage will still be the same. The only difference will be the lack of crime associated with the trade.

Saying that more people will be committing crimes to feed their habit is not a good reason (to me) to have something banned. In that respect we should ban iPhones, flat screens, spinner rims and other examples of capitalist decadence, because people steal plenty in order to facilitate a lifestyle of "stuff owning" just as much as drug use. Let's deal with one problem at a time. It's still illegal to steal stuff last time I checked.

Narcs don't have a positive impact on society? Sure, but they have a negative impact and they ain't goin' anywhere, ever. We can choose to what level that negative impact is. The war on drugs has cost us a bunch and it keeps our prisons full of folks that don't know any other lifestyle other than drug dealing. If remove that industry from the underground it will force them to either get real jobs or steal stuff. Either way, it will cut down on drug related violence. Also, to think that legalizing and regulating the industry wouldn't put these gangs out of business think about our prohibition. Moonshining and illegal importing was booming. Not so much after stuff was legalized. The few moonshiners left out there that do it as a hobby aren't getting in gun battles on the streets of Chicago, right?

Also, the presumption that folks with jobs will risk being fired over drug use since most industries will still require drug testing is off. Why do responsible people with jobs not consume illegal drugs? Is it because they are worried about spending a night in jail on a charge that will probably be dropped or because they're afraid of losing their job in a drug test when they get in an on the job accident? I'm gonna go with "B". People who use aren't worried about the law. I can tell you that I don't use marijuana because of my job. If I wasn't worried about getting fired or the ability to find another job I'd have no problem smoking marijuana every so often, and I wouldn't be worried about the law. In fact, once I reach retirement age I'll probably keep a healthy stash regardless of the laws. What about that makes me the kind of person that should be jailed?

[sigmtnman]

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

By virtue of the Bill of Rights not being exhaustive and the fact that our rights come from our creator, it is a right no matter if it is spelled out.

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.

It is a State's rights issue if you read the Constitution. That is unless one allows it to fall under the oft abused interstate commerce clause. The issue is intertwined. Take the states who have opted to allow medicinal marijuana, for the most part the Fed ignores those States rights/wishes. If the Fed acted under it's Constitutional limits, it would get out of the drug enforcement business just like it should get out of the gun regulation business.

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

Again, this is your perspective. I happen to agree on the arms part but disagree on the narcotics part. It is the perspective of libs that guns kill and cause violence, just as it is your perspective that narcotics kill and cause violence. It is my perspective that a person kills and causes violence. Whether it was due to a sugar high, caffeine rage, pharmaceutical, coke, alcohol, desire for bling, or just plain meanness does not matter and is just a scape goat.

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.

You don't reckon that's because it's a cheap fix that can be purchased legally with ease in most locations? Do you not think that a person who is operating outside the law already has a tendency to continue to do so?

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.

When I used to travel a lot for work I've personally been to company parties/event's where I have seen people pretty high (no pun intended) in the food chain including CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, ADAs, LEOs and more occasionally use illicit "hard" drugs not to mention all of the college kids as TMF points out. Pretty sure none of those folks killed anyone for their drugs and none of the turned into raving crack addicts as "stats" suggest. Where they right to do it? I didn't agree, but then again, they didn't affect me anymore than the guy with a glass of bourbon, wine or beer.

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.

Show me an instance where the free market did not drive down prices, so while it is conjecture, it's not unfounded. You could just as easily say that "wilder" availability of narcotics will lead to more addicts, but that assumes that there are people waiting on the sidelines to get into the action, no? Are the drug laws the only thing keeping you from doing drugs? I'd think not. Drugs are readily available right now for anyone who seeks them out, regardless of what people think.

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

Again, by the Bill of Rights not being exhaustive it is outside the realm of the federal government jurisdiction, unless you use one of the oft abused clauses.

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.

Perhaps this is the confusion. It is a State right to regulate if that is what the citizens of the state desire, but it is not the Feds place.

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.

Your freedom is impacted when your property rights are infringed upon. No matter if it is a person robbing to buy a big mack, drugs or anything else. Welfare should not exist, so that's a moot discussion and most drug users are not able to get insurance from what I understand. If not the free market should allow an insurance company to not provide insurance to drug users and you should be able to purchase from them to get lower rates.

What we have is a bastardized system where folks want the .gov to meddle with some things outside their jurisdiction and don't want the .gov to meddle with other things outside their jurisdiction.

In order to protect the rights that I desire it forces me to support the rights of others whether I like them or not. Otherwise it turns to mob rules and I won't always be in majority so eventually I will lose rights.

Edited August 2, 2012 by sigmtnman

[TrickyNicky]

Anyone who recreationally uses narcs isn't slowed down by the law. I would guess that people who don't use narcotics don't use them because the negative effects it would have on them personally and professionally. Speaking from experience, having smoked a lot of weed in my day I never considered using anything harder although I was frequently exposed to it. Nearly every social gathering I went to in the college years folks were using ecstasy and it wasn't uncommon for someone to have a little coke, and of course everyone had weed. I never considered the law when using marijuana, just as I never considered the law when choosing not to use the harder stuff. I don't think legalizing any of it would make folks more prone to using it as there are already social stigmas attached so the folks that will use it are the same folks that don't care about breaking the law now. I think usage will still be the same. The only difference will be the lack of crime associated with the trade.

Saying that more people will be committing crimes to feed their habit is not a good reason (to me) to have something banned. In that respect we should ban iPhones, flat screens, spinner rims and other examples of capitalist decadence, because people steal plenty in order to facilitate a lifestyle of "stuff owning" just as much as drug use. Let's deal with one problem at a time. It's still illegal to steal stuff last time I checked.

Narcs don't have a positive impact on society? Sure, but they have a negative impact and they ain't goin' anywhere, ever. We can choose to what level that negative impact is. The war on drugs has cost us a bunch and it keeps our prisons full of folks that don't know any other lifestyle other than drug dealing. If remove that industry from the underground it will force them to either get real jobs or steal stuff. Either way, it will cut down on drug related violence. Also, to think that legalizing and regulating the industry wouldn't put these gangs out of business think about our prohibition. Moonshining and illegal importing was booming. Not so much after stuff was legalized. The few moonshiners left out there that do it as a hobby aren't getting in gun battles on the streets of Chicago, right?

Also, the presumption that folks with jobs will risk being fired over drug use since most industries will still require drug testing is off. Why do responsible people with jobs not consume illegal drugs? Is it because they are worried about spending a night in jail on a charge that will probably be dropped or because they're afraid of losing their job in a drug test when they get in an on the job accident? I'm gonna go with "B". People who use aren't worried about the law. I can tell you that I don't use marijuana because of my job. If I wasn't worried about getting fired or the ability to find another job I'd have no problem smoking marijuana every so often, and I wouldn't be worried about the law. In fact, once I reach retirement age I'll probably keep a healthy stash regardless of the laws. What about that makes me the kind of person that should be jailed?

Very well said.

[RobertNashville]

By virtue of the Bill of Rights not being exhaustive and the fact that our rights come from our creator, it is a right no matter if it is spelled out.

Which doesn’t change the simple fact that narcotics use is not a “right†protected by the Constitution. Moreover, I see nothing to make me believe that the use of narcotics is a “right†at all.

It is a State's rights issue if you read the Constitution. That is unless one allows it to fall under the oft abused interstate commerce clause. The issue is intertwined. Take the states who have opted to allow medicinal marijuana, for the most part the Fed ignores those States rights/wishes. If the Fed acted under it's Constitutional limits, it would get out of the drug enforcement business just like it should get out of the gun regulation business.

I’ve read the constitution many times…maybe I’ve just missed it but I never seen narcotics mentioned. Anyway, where in this thread, other than your own posts, did you even get the idea that this thread had anything to with state’s rights? I don’t think the thread goes there at all. Even if it did it would be a strange direction to take… the use of certain narcotic drugs is illegal under STATE law, I think in every state in the U.S. as well as illegal under Federal law so it seems to me the more beneficial discussion should be wehther they should or shouldn’t be legal/unregulated; not what government entity should or shouldn’t do the regulating.

Again, this is your perspective. I happen to agree on the arms part but disagree on the narcotics part. It is the perspective of libs that guns kill and cause violence, just as it is your perspective that narcotics kill and cause violence. It is my perspective that a person kills and causes violence. Whether it was due to a sugar high, caffeine rage, pharmaceutical, coke, alcohol, desire for bling, or just plain meanness does not matter and is just a scape goat.

I don't really think we have a lot of crime happening because of the abuse of sugar or caffeine...do you have any stats on that?

If we make the possession of any firearm and the possession of any drug completely legal and unregulated and we’ll only lock up those who abuse/misuse firearms or drugs would that be okay with you? I have a feeling our prisons will have a lot more drug abusers in them than they will those who misuse their firearms but in any case, it's what the abusers do before the get to prison that is really the problem. So, if the use/abuse of narcotics is not a "right" (which I think it is not) and if the use/abuse of narcotics caused harm to others (which I contend it does) then I believe that society has both the authority and the duty to act to mitigate that harm.

You don't reckon that's because it's a cheap fix that can be purchased legally with ease in most locations? Do you not think that a person who is operating outside the law already has a tendency to continue to do so?

As I said, 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 so no, I don't think that's because alcohol is a cheap fix that can be purchased legally with ease in most locations. I reckon it’s because alcohol is less addictive to most people than are narcotics. I reckon that for those who are addicted to alcohol, the absence of an alcohol “fix†is less likely to drive someone to crime to obtain money to buy their “fix†to avoid the significant mental and physical drive for the person addicted to a narcotic.

When I used to travel a lot for work I've personally been to company parties/event's where I have seen people pretty high (no pun intended) in the food chain including CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, ADAs, LEOs and more occasionally use illicit "hard" drugs not to mention all of the college kids as TMF points out. Pretty sure none of those folks killed anyone for their drugs and none of the turned into raving crack addicts as "stats" suggest. Where they right to do it? I didn't agree, but then again, they didn't affect me anymore than the guy with a glass of bourbon, wine or beer.

I don’t put a lot of stock in anecdotal stories...I suppose because a story can be found that will support whatever position a person wants to support...I suppose I've also had too many statistics classes to trust a single (or even a few) individual stories. However, putting that aside for the moment, have you actually followed all these CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, ADAs, LEOs, other people that you once observed using illicit “hard†drugs to know what direction their lives took? Have you looked at the effect of their drug use on their families/those close to them?

I’ve seen people use LSD...I’ve seen people use cocaine…is assuming they didn’t have a problem after that one time I saw them using a reasonable basis to reach a decision about the effects of long-term use of narcotics?

Show me an instance where the free market did not drive down prices, so while it is conjecture, it's not unfounded.

It’s not unfounded but I’m not sure what makes you believe that drugs becoming suddenly legal would become less expensive; the free market will charge the highest price the market will bear. Moreover, those who abuse drugs tend to have little money because they tend to not have or can’t keep a job so whether their hit costs $5 or $5,000; if the user doesn’t have the $5 what difference does the price make?

You could just as easily say that "wilder" availability of narcotics will lead to more addicts, but that assumes that there are people waiting on the sidelines to get into the action, no? Are the drug laws the only thing keeping you from doing drugs? I'd think not. Drugs are readily available right now for anyone who seeks them out, regardless of what people think.

I could just as easily say that but I wouldn’t believe it…I didn’t say people are “waiting on the sidelinesâ€, however, if you want to contend that making something as significantly, albeit momentarily pleasurable and addictive as a narcotic easily available to anyone who wants them would it would not foster greater use by larger numbers you can contend that but I find little logic in the contention.

Again, by the Bill of Rights not being exhaustive it is outside the realm of the federal government jurisdiction, unless you use one of the oft abused clauses.

Perhaps this is the confusion. It is a State right to regulate if that is what the citizens of the state desire, but it is not the Feds place.

Your freedom is impacted when your property rights are infringed upon. No matter if it is a person robbing to buy a big mack, drugs or anything else. Welfare should not exist, so that's a moot discussion and most drug users are not able to get insurance from what I understand. If not the free market should allow an insurance company to not provide insurance to drug users and you should be able to purchase from them to get lower rates.

What we have is a bastardized system where folks want the .gov to meddle with some things outside their jurisdiction and don't want the .gov to meddle with other things outside their jurisdiction.

In order to protect the rights that I desire it forces me to support the rights of others whether I like them or not. Otherwise it turns to mob rules and I won't always be in majority so eventually I will lose rights.

I’m not confused at all, you are simply arguing something I’m not.

If narcotics should be legal/unregulated then they should be legal/unregulated...if they shouldn't be then they shouldn't be; I don't give a rat's a** what government entity does or doesn't do the regulating and I’ve seen not reason presented to support the idea that they should be legalized

Edited August 2, 2012 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

Which doesn’t change the simple fact that narcotics use is not a “right†protected by the Constitution. Moreover, I see nothing to make me believe that the use of narcotics is a “right†at all.

The Constitution is a limit on the Federal Government. The 10th amendment makes it a protected State/personal right.

I’ve read the constitution many times…maybe I’ve just missed it but I never seen narcotics mentioned. Anyway, where in this thread, other than your own posts, did you even get the idea that this thread had anything to with state’s rights? I don’t think the thread goes there at all. Even if it did it would be a strange direction to take… the use of certain narcotic drugs is illegal under STATE law, I think in every state in the U.S. as well as illegal under Federal law so it seems to me the more beneficial discussion should be wehther they should or shouldn’t be legal/unregulated; not what government entity should or shouldn’t do the regulating.

Now you are taking me to task with staying strictly on what you have defined as the topic? Where in this thread was it declared that we are only talking about full legalization across the board for every state? State's rights have everything to do with everything where the federal government oversteps it's limits as spelled out in the Constitution. The largest organization specifically tasked with enforcing drug laws is the DEA which is federal.

I don't really think we have a lot of crime happening because of the abuse of sugar or caffeine...do you have any stats on that?

Everyone has stats, but does that make them all useful?

For Ss&Gs here is something for you to chew on:

http://bjp.rcpsych.o...96/3/245.1.full

http://www.msnbc.msn..._and_nutrition/

http://www.addiction...sugar-and-crime

http://www.usatoday....eens/50916334/1

While most studies only show association and not cause and affect, the same is true for drug stats. Correlation is not causation.

If we make the possession of any firearm and the possession of any drug completely legal and unregulated and we’ll only lock up those who abuse/misuse firearms or drugs would that be okay with you? I have a feeling our prisons will have a lot more drug abusers in them than they will those who misuse their firearms but in any case, it's what the abusers do before the get to prison that is really the problem. So, if the use/abuse of narcotics is not a "right" (which I think it is not) and if the use/abuse of narcotics caused harm to others (which I contend it does) then I believe that society has both the authority and the duty to act to mitigate that harm.

Yes that would be ok with me. Your feelings and beliefs are not facts or admissible in court. I believe people should be held accountable for their actions, you obviously feel inanimate objects should be.

As I said, 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 so no, I don't think that's because alcohol is a cheap fix that can be purchased legally with ease in most locations. I reckon it’s because alcohol is less addictive to most people than are narcotics. I reckon that for those who are addicted to alcohol, the absence of an alcohol “fix†is less likely to drive someone to crime to obtain money to buy their “fix†to avoid the significant mental and physical drive for the person addicted to a narcotic.

Then using that line of thought... Repeated studies show that nicotine is more addictive than most "hard" drugs, but we don't see the victimization you suggest due to folks addiction to it do we?

http://www1.umn.edu/...o/nicaddct.html

Sorry, I don’t put a lot of stock in anecdotal stories but putting that aside for the moment, have you actually followed all these CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, ADAs, LEOs, other people that you once observed using illicit “hard†drugs to know what direction their lives took? Have you looked at the effect of their drug use on their families/those close to them?

That's fine how about Steve Jobs?

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

"He told a reporter that taking LSD was one of the two or three most important things he had done in his life. He said there were things about him that people who had not tried psychedelics — even people who knew him well, including his wife — could never understand"

or Bill Gates?

http://beginnersinve...llgatesint5.htm

It’s not unfounded but I’m not sure what makes you believe that drugs becoming suddenly legal would become less expensive; the free market will charge the highest price the market will bear. Moreover, those who abuse drugs tend to have little money because they tend to not have or can’t keep a job so whether their hit costs $5 or $5,000; if the user doesn’t have the $5 what difference does the price make?

Your assumption that those who "use" drugs whether habitually or occasionally are all broke and that's just your assumption. Show me the stats on that.

I could just as easily say that but I wouldn’t believe it…I didn’t say people are “waiting on the sidelinesâ€, however, if you want to contend that making something as significantly, albeit momentarily pleasurable and addictive as a narcotic easily available to anyone who wants them would it would not foster greater use by larger numbers you can contend that but I find little logic in the contention.

How is this idea any different than what Bloomberg wants to do with french fries and milk shakes in NY? A nice strawberry milkshake really pleases me, but I'm not going to kill a man for one.

I'd argue it would not foster greater use. Again, would you start using hard drugs if they were legal? Why would you assume any less for other citizens? Do you feel you are better at controlling yourself than unenlightened folks?

I’m not confused at all, you are simply arguing something I’m not.

Then why do you continue to respond in detail? Just brush me off.

If narcotics should be legal/unregulated then they should be legal/unregulated...if they shouldn't be then they shouldn't be; I don't give a rat's a** what government entity does or doesn't do the regulating and I’ve seen not reason presented to support the idea that they should be legalized

Ok, so you are for all or nothing. That's fine. I am for the federal government abiding by the Constitution and allowing the states to decide what is best for it's citizens. I do give rats ass about a delineation of federal and state responsibilities.

Edited August 2, 2012 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[RobertNashville]

I don't mind if you want to have a discussion about legalizing/regulating narcotics as it relates to states vs federal abilities to legalize/regulate but you really should do so with someone else because I'm not interested in that discussion - I'm interested in a discussion about whether narcotics use should or shouldn't be regulated; if that's not what you want to discuss that's okay.

I see nothing in this thread that gives me reason to think that the use of narcotics is a "right" and if it isn't a right (stated or unstated) then it can be regulated without violating a right.

I've seen opinion but no evidence to support the idea that making narcotics use legal/unregulated would be prudent or that it would be good for society or that it wouldn't cause far, far more problems than we already have.

Therefore I see no reason why narcotics should be legal and/or unregulated because I see unregulated narcotics use as a clear danger to me personally and to society at large.

Edited August 2, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

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.

I have repeatedly said that recreational drug abuse is harmful. As is the war on drugs, and as is treating adults like children. Regulation of a harmful drug for the general welfare follows the same rationale of regulating the size and sweetness and price of soft drinks, because we all have to pay part of the price of treating indigent fat people. Nanny state attitude front to back.

There is a ratio of use to abuse, which I believe is relatively fixed regardless of the legality of a substance. There is only a certain percentage of mad killers in society regardless how many guns there are. If you double the number of guns it does not double the number of mad killers. Similarly there are only so many people of an addictive personality, and we seem near the saturation point of addiction even with the drugs illegal. Therefore, legalization would not likely greatly exacerbate the primary problems or magnitude of addiction, but it would clear many of the expenses and unintended consequences of draconian enforcement and treating all adults like children.

I personally have no desire to take recreational drugs and would not suddenly turn into a drug fiend just because they are more easily available. I can already get them if I want them (just like every other citizen in the nation), but I don't want them. Most people don't want them.

As to long-term benefit of narcotics, old ancient dad's spine has been gradually dissolving for a couple of decades and he takes strong narcotics for years. Hasn't noticeably hurt his health and makes life bearable. The doctors tell him, "Don't let anyone know you have those pills at home or somebody will kill you for them." The only reason for that risk is that drug fiends can't buy their own cheap supply at walmart. Narcotics are very cheap to manufacture.

I know a couple of younger fellas with serious spine issues, been strung out for years. They get up and work every day just like everybody else. Their pharmaceutical dope is cheap. If they had to buy it on the street they would probably have $1000 a day habits.

I don't like narcotics. I don't like the feeling and they make me sick as a dog. I can't be around pot smoke because of being allergic to it. My attitude has nothing to do with wanting it for myself. On the other hand if they ban coffee or tobacco there will be a problem. I will become a proud criminal mastermind before I quit drinking coffee just because nanny made it illegal.

It is bad for people to long-term take high dose drugs for no legitimate reason. However, given the scenario of a fellow who is addicted for 10 years and then he finally kicks the habit-- If the fellow has been addicted to alcohol but otherwise lives a clean life and goes to work every day, he will have substantial liver and brain damage and other health issues. If the fellow has been addicted to pharmaceutical narcotics but otherwise lives a clean life and goes to work every day, he will have minimal damage to the bodily systems. Statistically speaking after he kicks the habit he will be in much better physical shape than the equally-long-addicted alcoholic. Narcotics addicts health problems are primarily due to the lifestyle, not the drug.

I'm not saying that narcotics are wonderful and people should be addicts. Am merely saying that they are arguably safer (in pure form) than the equivalent level of alcohol abuse. It is not like narcotics are a thousand times worse than stuff that is already legal. Gasoline is legal and a normal kid can kill his brain down to permanent retarded psychotic state within a year sniffing gasoline, if he doesn't kill himself in the process.

We have a bad problem of prescription narcotic abuse for recreation. If we can stop the availability then those people will become alcoholics. It is not the case, that if we could only choke off the pill supply, that those people would suddenly go get a PhD and do research for NASA. The biggest long term health hazard of the oxycodones and such, are the large doses of tylenol in the pills. When they long-term take enough pills to get high as a kite, they poison their liver with tylenol. Made even worse if they wash down the pills with booze. The best way to assure the health of the pill heads if and when they finally straighten up, is to sell them pills that are not laced with poisonous over-the-counter entirely legal tylenol.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[sigmtnman]

I don't mind if you want to have a discussion about legalizing/regulating narcotics as it relates to states vs federal abilities to legalize/regulate but you really should do so with someone else because I'm not interested in that discussion - I'm interested in a discussion about whether narcotics use should or shouldn't be regulated; if that's not what you want to discuss that's okay.

I see nothing in this thread that gives me reason to think that the use of narcotics is a "right" and if it isn't a right (stated or unstated) then it can be regulated without violating a right.

I've seen opinion but no evidence to support the idea that making narcotics use legal/unregulated would be prudent or that it would be good for society or that it wouldn't cause far, far more problems than we already have.

Therefore I see no reason why narcotics should be legal and/or unregulated because I see unregulated narcotics use as a clear danger to me personally and to society at large.

Where do our rights come from? Do you deny the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

The converse could be said about your contention that no evidence has been presented but only opinion, with regard to decriminalization. Your argument is that drugs cause people to commit crimes, when in fact, they no more cause people to commit crimes than guns cause people to commit crimes. If a person robbed you to buy a big mac or some 24" rims, would you propose to outlaw big macs and 24" rims?

[RobertNashville]

Where do our rights come from? Do you deny the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

The converse could be said about your contention that no evidence has been presented but only opinion, with regard to decriminalization. Your argument is that drugs cause people to commit crimes, when in fact, they no more cause people to commit crimes than guns cause people to commit crimes. If a person robbed you to buy a big mac or some 24" rims, would you propose to outlaw big macs and 24" rims?

My rights come from God (or for those that don't believe in God, from simply being a sentient being). However, not everything I might want to do or chose to do is a "right" just because I or someone claims it to be.

There is a significant percentage of people sitting in jails and prisons right now who committed their crimes because they were on narcotics when they committed their crimes or they committed their crimes to obtain money to obtain the narcotics their bodies were driving them to have; not Big Macks...not rims...narcotics.

If people want to ignore that information or if people accept the information but chose to believe that the crimes will end with legalization/um-regulation of narcotics use they can but I'm not going to ignore the data nor do I believe that legalization/um-regulating narcotics will make the crime go away.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

There is a significant percentage of people sitting in jails and prisons right now who committed their crimes because they were on narcotics when they committed their crimes or they committed their crimes to obtain money to obtain the narcotics their bodies were driving them to have; not Big Macks...not rims...narcotics.

I'm not saying people should take drugs, but for instance the over-the-counter anti-diarrhea pill loperamide is a synthetic narcotic that doesn't make people high because it doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier. If it crossed the blood-brain barrier it would make people high as a kite.

You can buy a bottle of loperamide for about the same price as a Big Mac. They can just as easliy manufacture and sell the narcotic variants that do get you high in the same price ballpark. Actually there is incredible profit built in to an over the counter bottle of loperamide, so the actual "bottom dollar price" with open competition would be much lower than the price of a big mac.

Are you telling me that if a drug fiend could buy his daily fix for the price of a Big Mac that he would be killing people for the narcotics, even though people do not routinely kill for a big mac fix?

And with staggering profit levels considering the black market street price of cheap chemicals, is it any wonder that dealers would slit their own granny's throat to bring it to market? The mexicans and columbians, no way they can price compete with the likes of Merke and Walmart. They would find some other criminal enterprise, but there wouldn't be enough money in drugs to stay in that business.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[sigmtnman]

My rights come from God (or for those that don't believe in God, from simply being a sentient being). However, not everything I might want to do or chose to do is a "right" just because I or someone claims it to be.

There is a significant percentage of people sitting in jails and prisons right now who committed their crimes because they were on narcotics when they committed their crimes or they committed their crimes to obtain money to obtain the narcotics their bodies were driving them to have; not Big Macks...not rims...narcotics.

If people want to ignore that information or if people accept the information but chose to believe that the crimes will end with legalization/um-regulation of narcotics use they can but I'm not going to ignore the data nor do I believe that legalization/um-regulating narcotics will make the crime go away.

Is driving a nice car a right? Would you be ok with nice cars being made illegal,if the commies are the majority, since there is nothing in the Constitution making them a right or from your Creator? The FBI estimated property losses of $4.5 billion in 2010 due to stolen vehicles.

The idea that there are not people in prison for theft who were not high on drugs is ludicrous. Heck even the .govs bureau of Justice stats say that the minority of offenders were on drugs, committing crimes to fund drugs or perceived to be on drugs by the victims. Of note is that alcohol is included int he stats. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj...ent/dcf/duc.cfm

One could argue, given an even distribution of crazies, the ones on alcohol and drugs are less likely to commit property or violent crimes.

Edited August 2, 2012 by sigmtnman

[RobertNashville]

I'm not saying people should take drugs, but for instance the over-the-counter anti-diarrhea pill loperamide is a synthetic narcotic that doesn't make people high because it doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier. If it crossed the blood-brain barrier it would make people high as a kite.

You can buy a bottle of loperamide for about the same price as a Big Mac. They can just as easliy manufacture and sell the narcotic variants that do get you high in the same price ballpark. Actually there is incredible profit built in to an over the counter bottle of loperamide, so the actual "bottom dollar price" with open competition would be much lower than the price of a big mac.

Are you telling me that if a drug fiend could buy his daily fix for the price of a Big Mac that he would be killing people for the narcotics, even though people do not routinely kill for a big mac fix?

And with staggering profit levels considering the black market street price of cheap chemicals, is it any wonder that dealers would slit their own granny's throat to bring it to market? The mexicans and columbians, no way they can price compete with the likes of Merke and Walmart. They would find some other criminal enterprise, but there wouldn't be enough money in drugs to stay in that business.

I think all this talk of cheep prices is just not based in reality...at the very least, it's not based on evidence. Without evidence, what you are suggesting is conjecture. It may prove to be correct but I'm not willing to suggest or support the idea of legalization of narcotics without a lot more than conjecture.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I think all this talk of cheep prices is just not based in reality...at the very least, it's not based on evidence. Without evidence, what you are suggesting is conjecture. It may prove to be correct but I'm not willing to suggest or support the idea of legalization of narcotics without a lot more than conjecture.

Robert, I just gave you evidence. Loperamide is a narcotic. Go to a drug store and check the price. When I had the eye surgically removed last year, or the kidney stone the year before, my bottles of generic narcotics costed cheaper than a big mac. I still have the bottles nearly full, locked in the safe in case of emergency. They must not be too addictive or I would have gobbled them all up the day I got them. They suck. Only some poor people even like the feeling.

There is another narcotic that has strong analgesia but doesn't get people "very high" called Tramadol. Used for both people and pets. The po old dawg in my picture had bad arthritis and finally passed away last week. He was on several pills the last few years and he had a good life right till the last couple of days. He would have had to be put down years ago without the pills. For the last couple of years old Travis was taking enough Tramadol to stun a mule and I didn't even have to murder one person to afford to buy it from the vet. It was in fact, cheaper than the anti-inflammatory or thyroid pills.

[RobertNashville]

Is driving a nice car a right? Would you be ok with nice cars being made illegal since there is nothing in the Constitution making them a right or from your Creator if the commies are the majority? The FBI estimated property losses of $4.5 billion in 2010 due to stolen vehicles.

The idea that there are not people in prison for theft who were not high on drugs is ludicrous. Heck even the .govs bureau of Justice stats say that the minority of offenders were on drugs or perceived to be on drugs by the victims. Of note is that alcohol is included int he stats.

One could argue, given an even distribution of crazies, the ones on alcohol and drugs are less likely to commit property or violent crimes.

No, I don't believe driving a car, nice or junker, is a right at all.

One could argue anything; it doesn't mean the argument has any merit.

The idea that there are not people in prison for theft who were not high on drugs most certainly IS ludicrous which is why I've never said or even hinted otherwise...which makes me wonder why you feel the need to ascribing such a ridiculous statement to me.

Edited August 2, 2012 by RobertNashville

[sigmtnman]

Drug enforcement (federal, state and local) budgets are kinda irrelevant.

The DEA seized 339 million dollars in cash in 2005 (the last year I can provide a link) for. http://www.justice.g...a0706/final.pdf

They seized 210 million in Mexico City in 2008 in one raid alone.

Not included in those figures is property seizures. They seize a crap ton of vehicles, guns and even houses, which are all auctioned off.

Drug enforcement at all levels should be self sustaining or near self sustaining.

In 2005 the DEA budget was $2.142 billion, so that left about a 1.8 billion dollar shortfall.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/agency/staffing.htm

[RobertNashville]

Robert, I just gave you evidence. Loperamide is a narcotic. Go to a drug store and check the price. When I had the eye surgically removed last year, or the kidney stone the year before, my bottles of generic narcotics costed cheaper than a big mac. I still have the bottles nearly full, locked in the safe in case of emergency. They must not be too addictive or I would have gobbled them all up the day I got them. They suck. Only some poor people even like the feeling.

There is another narcotic that has strong analgesia but doesn't get people "very high" called Tramadol. Used for both people and pets. The po old dawg in my picture had bad arthritis and finally passed away last week. He was on several pills the last few years and he had a good life right till the last couple of days. He would have had to be put down years ago without the pills. For the last couple of years old Travis was taking enough Tramadol to stun a mule and I didn't even have to murder one person to afford to buy it from the vet. It was in fact, cheaper than the anti-inflammatory or thyroid pills.

Maybe your experience was and would be typical but I think you are still making a lot of assumptions on a small amount of experience.

Assuming for the sake of argument, that the price of the previously illegal now illegal narcotics would fall to negligible amounts, is price the only thing (or the most important thing) we should consider when suggesting that these narcotics should be legal?

Edited August 2, 2012 by RobertNashville