Cartel violence is here: Teen tortured, beheaded IN OKLAHOMA press silent!

[High_Gravity]

So you in effect are arguing that we shouldn't legalize drugs because you are afraid it will piss off the drug cartels?


Really? They are going to take on the full might of the american military? Do you think the cartels are going to scare people into buying illegal drugs at higher prices rather than the cheaper legal drugs because they are afraid of the cartels? Do you think the government will let terrorist activities on our soil or against americans pass without retaliation?

If drugs are legal the cartels will just move on to something else, like sex slavery, money laundering etc etc even though they won't make as much money, if drugs are legal I don't see the cartels putting down their guns and going legit.

Yes they will, but the market for those things is orders of magnitude smaller then the appetite for drugs. The drug laws are quite literally a license to print money. The drug lords have so much money they can buy virtually anything they nedd or have problems killed. Take that away from them and they lose a considerable amount of their ability to corrupt the governments of the world.

Just look at Prohibition, that witnessed the creation of organized crime. The gangs that were created back then still exist today but now they traffic drugs. That is your model.
Once alcohol was legalised they needed to villify something else so they could continue making money for nothing. And drugs was it.

You are exactly right, I guess my question is after the drugs, what will be the new thing that comes out? back in the 20's during prohibition there was not nearly as many drugs as there are now, and once they legalized alcohol they thought that would be it.

 

[FuelRod]

You could legalize dope and prostituition and these types of criminals are going to increase meth traffic and other crimes.
Legalization is not the answer to these types (you want to argue tax revenues that is another story.)
Harsher sentences to participants/members of these kind of criminal enterprises is the answer.
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Yes, that system has worked so well. We incarcerate more people then the rest of the world does for drug crimes....doesn't seem to be working. I suppose you could just kill anyone who uses drugs illegally, I sure hope one of your family members doesn't get caught up in it.

Comes down to what are you prepared to do? Look at the mugshot of that scumbag.
If you have enough drugs that you are charged with intent to distribute...and are armed.
Death penalty. Simple as that.
Fuck these people. The biggest problem with the Death Penalty in this country is the method of execution 90% of the time appears to be old age.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If drugs are legal the cartels will just move on to something else, like sex slavery, money laundering etc etc even though they won't make as much money, if drugs are legal I don't see the cartels putting down their guns and going legit.

Yes they will, but the market for those things is orders of magnitude smaller then the appetite for drugs. The drug laws are quite literally a license to print money. The drug lords have so much money they can buy virtually anything they nedd or have problems killed. Take that away from them and they lose a considerable amount of their ability to corrupt the governments of the world.

Just look at Prohibition, that witnessed the creation of organized crime. The gangs that were created back then still exist today but now they traffic drugs. That is your model.
Once alcohol was legalised they needed to villify something else so they could continue making money for nothing. And drugs was it.

You are exactly right, I guess my question is after the drugs, what will be the new thing that comes out? back in the 20's during prohibition there was not nearly as many drugs as there are now, and once they legalized alcohol they thought that would be it.

Actually, alcohol WAS legal until some Baptist douchebag decided that because he'd been a drunk and quit, that EVERYONE should be dry as well.

Nothing worse than a "reformed" alcoholic telling you about the evils of alcohol.

And, after the nation tried it and found it didn't work (rise of the Mafia, bootleggers, organized crime, etc.) they then took back the prohibition on alcohol.

Nobody thought that legalizing alcohol would take care of the drug problem.

 

[westwall]

You could legalize dope and prostituition and these types of criminals are going to increase meth traffic and other crimes.
Legalization is not the answer to these types (you want to argue tax revenues that is another story.)
Harsher sentences to participants/members of these kind of criminal enterprises is the answer.
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Yes, that system has worked so well. We incarcerate more people then the rest of the world does for drug crimes....doesn't seem to be working. I suppose you could just kill anyone who uses drugs illegally, I sure hope one of your family members doesn't get caught up in it.

Comes down to what are you prepared to do? Look at the mugshot of that scumbag.
If you have enough drugs that you are charged with intent to distribute...and are armed.
Death penalty. Simple as that.
Fuck these people. The biggest problem with the Death Penalty in this country is the method of execution 90% of the time appears to be old age.

What about the users? If there is no demand there are no dealers. So long as there is demand there are plenty who will accept the risk and they will make loads of money and they will continue to corrupt the system and laugh all the way to the bank with your futile attempts to stop the importation of drugs.

Can you not see that it is unwinnable? Can you not see that so long as a powder worth 8 cents normally, but worth hundreds of dollars through legislation, is a commodity that you will NEVER control?

You have two ways of stopping the crime. Legalise it or kill all the users. It's your choice...what do you choose?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You could legalize dope and prostituition and these types of criminals are going to increase meth traffic and other crimes.
Legalization is not the answer to these types (you want to argue tax revenues that is another story.)
Harsher sentences to participants/members of these kind of criminal enterprises is the answer.
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Harsher crimes for non violent criminals.


People still speed a lot, should probably make it a mandatory 1 year in jail for all non violent speeders.

Most drug addicts are not law abiding citizens. They steal, rob, assault, pick pocket, shop lift, break into homes, etc etc etc.........

 

[pegwinn]

Cartel violence is here: Teen tortured, beheaded in Oklahoma

Terrible, so what do you suggest we do other than put scum like this in jail? Impeach Obama?

Ah no. How about we actually use the death penalty in a timely manner so it can become a deterrent to violent crime? How about life without possibility of parole for violent offenders short of death?

How about we learn from prohibition and knock off the so-called war on drugs? I don't think it will eliminate crime syndicates or cartels or whatever we call them this year. But, I'd bet a dollar or two that it will scale them back.

We incarcerate more people than anyone in the world, and yet it is apparently not a deterrent. I would submit that once the court process is over we skip any pretense of humanity and make prison into something to be truly feared. I also submit that anyone who causes a death during the commission of a crime, any crime, be eligible for the death penalty.

Our system is broken and our law enforcement is shackled. We need to change that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You could legalize dope and prostituition and these types of criminals are going to increase meth traffic and other crimes.
Legalization is not the answer to these types (you want to argue tax revenues that is another story.)
Harsher sentences to participants/members of these kind of criminal enterprises is the answer.
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Harsher crimes for non violent criminals.


People still speed a lot, should probably make it a mandatory 1 year in jail for all non violent speeders.

Most drug addicts are not law abiding citizens. They steal, rob, assault, pick pocket, shop lift, break into homes, etc etc etc.........

Correct, all those things are more likely to happen with the drug war being in place.

With it being against the law to do drugs, of course ppl will be less likely to ask for help so they don't get in trouble, can't get a job if you test positive for MJ so you're more likely to steal.

Utterly amazing that the common sense used in ending prohibition of alcohol isn't extended to ending prohibition in drugs, most especially marijuana.

 

[High_Gravity]

Yes they will, but the market for those things is orders of magnitude smaller then the appetite for drugs. The drug laws are quite literally a license to print money. The drug lords have so much money they can buy virtually anything they nedd or have problems killed. Take that away from them and they lose a considerable amount of their ability to corrupt the governments of the world.

Just look at Prohibition, that witnessed the creation of organized crime. The gangs that were created back then still exist today but now they traffic drugs. That is your model.
Once alcohol was legalised they needed to villify something else so they could continue making money for nothing. And drugs was it.

You are exactly right, I guess my question is after the drugs, what will be the new thing that comes out? back in the 20's during prohibition there was not nearly as many drugs as there are now, and once they legalized alcohol they thought that would be it.

Actually, alcohol WAS legal until some Baptist douchebag decided that because he'd been a drunk and quit, that EVERYONE should be dry as well.

Nothing worse than a "reformed" alcoholic telling you about the evils of alcohol.

And, after the nation tried it and found it didn't work (rise of the Mafia, bootleggers, organized crime, etc.) they then took back the prohibition on alcohol.

Nobody thought that legalizing alcohol would take care of the drug problem.

Prohibition was just a bad idea all around, but it sure made alot of gangsters nice and wealthy.

 

[Katzndogz]

When prohibition ended, it ended federal laws. States were still free to be "dry". We have dry counties to this day! The end of prohibition didn't fully open the door.

It was not the end of Prohibition that ended the gangsterism of the day. Most of the activity wasn't in rum running anyway. It was bank robbery. What broke the back of bootleggers wasn't the end of prohibition since the bootleggers were amenable to forcing bars and stores to still sell bootleg. It was very agressive law enforcement untroubled by gunning suspected bootleggers down in the street. Taking suspects in to backrooms and beating them until they gave up cohorts. Unfettered by current notions of civil rights the rubber hose was liberally used. There was no such thing as police brutality. There was no such thing as equality in the police department who made a point of hiring the biggest and baddest. Sadism was a plus! There was no such thing as hiring the slight or weak, or women, or sensitive gays who will be sympathetic and understanding. Many of the police in the 30s and 40s were hired right out of the ranks of the most brutal Irish gangs!

We don't have that anymore. We have cartels willing to be extremely violent and brutal. They will roll a bag of heads into a "legal" outlet, then go out for a beer.

 

[BlindBoo]

You could legalize dope and prostituition and these types of criminals are going to increase meth traffic and other crimes.
Legalization is not the answer to these types (you want to argue tax revenues that is another story.)
Harsher sentences to participants/members of these kind of criminal enterprises is the answer.
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Harsher crimes for non violent criminals.


People still speed a lot, should probably make it a mandatory 1 year in jail for all non violent speeders.

Most drug addicts are not law abiding citizens. They steal, rob, assault, pick pocket, shop lift, break into homes, etc etc etc.........

Most drug addict are addicted to nicotine, alcohol, and caffine. So no. Now poor fuks that are addicted to illegal, (high price, reduced quality with no quality assurance) drugs do tend to resort to stealing to afford their choice of chemicals......

 

[BlindBoo]

When prohibition ended, it ended federal laws. States were still free to be "dry". We have dry counties to this day! The end of prohibition didn't fully open the door.

It was not the end of Prohibition that ended the gangsterism of the day. Most of the activity wasn't in rum running anyway. It was bank robbery. What broke the back of bootleggers wasn't the end of prohibition since the bootleggers were amenable to forcing bars and stores to still sell bootleg. It was very agressive law enforcement untroubled by gunning suspected bootleggers down in the street. Taking suspects in to backrooms and beating them until they gave up cohorts. Unfettered by current notions of civil rights the rubber hose was liberally used. There was no such thing as police brutality. There was no such thing as equality in the police department who made a point of hiring the biggest and baddest. Sadism was a plus! There was no such thing as hiring the slight or weak, or women, or sensitive gays who will be sympathetic and understanding. Many of the police in the 30s and 40s were hired right out of the ranks of the most brutal Irish gangs!

We don't have that anymore. We have cartels willing to be extremely violent and brutal. They will roll a bag of heads into a "legal" outlet, then go out for a beer.

Interesting, to note as well Federal Prohibition didn't start it either. Many states had enacted alcohol bans.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You could legalize dope and prostituition and these types of criminals are going to increase meth traffic and other crimes.
Legalization is not the answer to these types (you want to argue tax revenues that is another story.)
Harsher sentences to participants/members of these kind of criminal enterprises is the answer.
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Harsher crimes for non violent criminals.


People still speed a lot, should probably make it a mandatory 1 year in jail for all non violent speeders.

Most drug addicts are not law abiding citizens. They steal, rob, assault, pick pocket, shop lift, break into homes, etc etc etc.........

Depends on what you define as a "drug". If you include drugs like alcohol and tobacco, there are MANY law abiding "drug addicts" running around America.

If you're talking about strictly illegal substances? Guess what? Over 50 percent of the population in America are casual users of cannabis, and no, it's impossible to become physically addicted to cannabis.

As far as legalization bringing problems? Really? How many problems has California and all the other medical marijuana states had since they were able to legally dispense?

Besides.........cannabis has been PROVEN to help with things like cancer patients undergoing chemo, Alzheimers, depression, PTSD, cataracts, among many other things.

IMHO, alcohol should be more illegal than cannabis, because the REAL "gateway drug" is alcohol. Why? Because alcohol will lower your inhibitions, causing you to do things you wouldn't normally do. Cannabis doesn't cause that effect.

 

[High_Gravity]

Harsher crimes for non violent criminals.


People still speed a lot, should probably make it a mandatory 1 year in jail for all non violent speeders.

Most drug addicts are not law abiding citizens. They steal, rob, assault, pick pocket, shop lift, break into homes, etc etc etc.........

Depends on what you define as a "drug". If you include drugs like alcohol and tobacco, there are MANY law abiding "drug addicts" running around America.

If you're talking about strictly illegal substances? Guess what? Over 50 percent of the population in America are casual users of cannabis, and no, it's impossible to become physically addicted to cannabis.

As far as legalization bringing problems? Really? How many problems has California and all the other medical marijuana states had since they were able to legally dispense?

Besides.........cannabis has been PROVEN to help with things like cancer patients undergoing chemo, Alzheimers, depression, PTSD, cataracts, among many other things.

IMHO, alcohol should be more illegal than cannabis, because the REAL "gateway drug" is alcohol. Why? Because alcohol will lower your inhibitions, causing you to do things you wouldn't normally do. Cannabis doesn't cause that effect.

50% of the country? are you sure?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Most drug addicts are not law abiding citizens. They steal, rob, assault, pick pocket, shop lift, break into homes, etc etc etc.........

Depends on what you define as a "drug". If you include drugs like alcohol and tobacco, there are MANY law abiding "drug addicts" running around America.

If you're talking about strictly illegal substances? Guess what? Over 50 percent of the population in America are casual users of cannabis, and no, it's impossible to become physically addicted to cannabis.

As far as legalization bringing problems? Really? How many problems has California and all the other medical marijuana states had since they were able to legally dispense?

Besides.........cannabis has been PROVEN to help with things like cancer patients undergoing chemo, Alzheimers, depression, PTSD, cataracts, among many other things.

IMHO, alcohol should be more illegal than cannabis, because the REAL "gateway drug" is alcohol. Why? Because alcohol will lower your inhibitions, causing you to do things you wouldn't normally do. Cannabis doesn't cause that effect.

50% of the country? are you sure?

Casual use is defined as once or twice a month. If you check NORML's stats, you'd see.

Probably around 30 percent of the adult population could be considered regular (weekly or more) users.

 

[High_Gravity]

Depends on what you define as a "drug". If you include drugs like alcohol and tobacco, there are MANY law abiding "drug addicts" running around America.

If you're talking about strictly illegal substances? Guess what? Over 50 percent of the population in America are casual users of cannabis, and no, it's impossible to become physically addicted to cannabis.

As far as legalization bringing problems? Really? How many problems has California and all the other medical marijuana states had since they were able to legally dispense?

Besides.........cannabis has been PROVEN to help with things like cancer patients undergoing chemo, Alzheimers, depression, PTSD, cataracts, among many other things.

IMHO, alcohol should be more illegal than cannabis, because the REAL "gateway drug" is alcohol. Why? Because alcohol will lower your inhibitions, causing you to do things you wouldn't normally do. Cannabis doesn't cause that effect.

50% of the country? are you sure?

Casual use is defined as once or twice a month. If you check NORML's stats, you'd see.

Probably around 30 percent of the adult population could be considered regular (weekly or more) users.

Oh, I think its time to legalize anyways. I don't smoke it myself but I see no problem with it if adults want so smoke it casually, to each his own.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You want to know what Harvard Medical considers "light" use?

Less than 15 joints/day.

 

[Katzndogz]

Most drug addicts are not law abiding citizens. They steal, rob, assault, pick pocket, shop lift, break into homes, etc etc etc.........

Depends on what you define as a "drug". If you include drugs like alcohol and tobacco, there are MANY law abiding "drug addicts" running around America.

If you're talking about strictly illegal substances? Guess what? Over 50 percent of the population in America are casual users of cannabis, and no, it's impossible to become physically addicted to cannabis.

As far as legalization bringing problems? Really? How many problems has California and all the other medical marijuana states had since they were able to legally dispense?

Besides.........cannabis has been PROVEN to help with things like cancer patients undergoing chemo, Alzheimers, depression, PTSD, cataracts, among many other things.

IMHO, alcohol should be more illegal than cannabis, because the REAL "gateway drug" is alcohol. Why? Because alcohol will lower your inhibitions, causing you to do things you wouldn't normally do. Cannabis doesn't cause that effect.

50% of the country? are you sure?

Wishful thinking. If you are a drug user and every one you know is a drug user it's easy to conclude that everyone else is a drug user too.

IF the marijuana outlets in California really had not caused problems, then the people who live where the outlets are wouldn't have taken steps to get them closed down. Torrance and Lake Forest are two communities that I know of where the citizens demanded that the business licenses of the "clinics" be revoked. Too much crime and attracted too many derelicts.

The majority of people I work with are international business people, The majority of people I socialize with are Asians, Japanese, Chinese and middle easterners. What I see is the beginnings of American stereotyping. The same kind as artfully exposed by our friend ABikerSailor. Americans are fat, lazy, whineing, poorly educated, pot heads and drug addicts. True or not, Americans anxious to saddle themselves with ill-repute are going to be competing with some very bright and energetic young people from around the world who don't smoke pot or want to.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Depends on what you define as a "drug". If you include drugs like alcohol and tobacco, there are MANY law abiding "drug addicts" running around America.

If you're talking about strictly illegal substances? Guess what? Over 50 percent of the population in America are casual users of cannabis, and no, it's impossible to become physically addicted to cannabis.

As far as legalization bringing problems? Really? How many problems has California and all the other medical marijuana states had since they were able to legally dispense?

Besides.........cannabis has been PROVEN to help with things like cancer patients undergoing chemo, Alzheimers, depression, PTSD, cataracts, among many other things.

IMHO, alcohol should be more illegal than cannabis, because the REAL "gateway drug" is alcohol. Why? Because alcohol will lower your inhibitions, causing you to do things you wouldn't normally do. Cannabis doesn't cause that effect.

50% of the country? are you sure?

Wishful thinking. If you are a drug user and every one you know is a drug user it's easy to conclude that everyone else is a drug user too.

IF the marijuana outlets in California really had not caused problems, then the people who live where the outlets are wouldn't have taken steps to get them closed down. Torrance and Lake Forest are two communities that I know of where the citizens demanded that the business licenses of the "clinics" be revoked. Too much crime and attracted too many derelicts.

The majority of people I work with are international business people, The majority of people I socialize with are Asians, Japanese, Chinese and middle easterners. What I see is the beginnings of American stereotyping. The same kind as artfully exposed by our friend ABikerSailor. Americans are fat, lazy, whineing, poorly educated, pot heads and drug addicts. True or not, Americans anxious to saddle themselves with ill-repute are going to be competing with some very bright and energetic young people from around the world who don't smoke pot or want to.

Why stop at pot then? Why not caffeine? Nicotine? alcohol? I drink maybe once a year so no sweat off of me. I don't smoke anything either. I barely take medicine when I need to so lets just ban it all. No more Ibuprofen or Acetamenaphine either. Why are we selective? What about vitamins?

Or we could just let people be FREE to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting someone else. I don't care what the japanese think of me to be honest.

 

[LibertyForAll]

You want to know what Harvard Medical considers "light" use?

Less than 15 joints/day.

Wow....That's a lot of weed for one day.

 

[Katzndogz]

When you see some citation like Harvard don't you ever wonder what they REALLY said?

Nothing good about marijuana.

Medical Marijuana and the Mind - Harvard Health Publications

Part of the reason marijuana works to relieve pain and quell nausea is that, in some people, it reduces anxiety, improves mood, and acts as a sedative. But so far the few studies evaluating the use of marijuana as a treatment for psychiatric disorders are inconclusive, partly because this drug may have contradictory effects in the brain depending on the dose of the drug and inborn genetic vulnerability.

Much more is known about the psychiatric risks of marijuana (whether used for recreational or medical purposes) than its benefits.

Addiction. Observational studies suggest that one in nine people who smokes marijuana regularly becomes dependent on it. Research both in animals and in people provides evidence that marijuana is an addictive substance, especially when used for prolonged periods.

Addiction specialists note with concern that THC concentration has been increasing in the herbal form of marijuana. In the United States, THC concentrations in marijuana sold on the street used to range from 1% to 4% of the total product; by 2003, average THC concentration had risen to 7%. Similar trends are reported in Europe. This increased potency might also accelerate development of dependence.

The small amount of research available on depression is also muddied. In line with what studies report about anxiety, many marijuana users describe an improvement in mood. Animal studies have suggested that components of marijuana may have antidepressant effects. Yet several observational studies have suggested that daily marijuana use may, in some users, actually increase symptoms of depression or promote the development of this disorder.

For example, an Australian study that followed the outcomes of 1,601 students found that those who used marijuana at least once a week at ages 14 or 15 were twice as likely to develop depression seven years later as those who never smoked the substance — even after adjusting for other factors. Young women who smoked marijuana daily were five times as likely to develop depression seven years later as their non-smoking peers. Although such studies do not prove cause and effect, the dose-outcomes relationship is particularly worrisome.

Psychosis. Marijuana exacerbates psychotic symptoms and worsens outcomes in patients already diagnosed with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders. Several large observational studies also strongly suggest that using marijuana — particularly in the early teenage years — can increase risk of developing psychosis.

An often-cited study of more than 50,000 young Swedish soldiers, for example, found that those who had smoked marijuana at least once were more than twice as likely to develop schizophrenia as those who had not smoked marijuana. The heaviest users (who said they had used the drug more than 50 times) were six times as likely to develop schizophrenia as the nonsmokers.

A review of side effects caused by medical marijuana found that most were mild. When compared with controls, people who used medical marijuana were more likely to develop pneumonia and other respiratory problems, and experience vomiting, and diarrhea.

There's no question that recreational use of marijuana produces short-term problems with thinking, working memory, and executive function (the ability to focus and integrate different types of information). Although little research exists on medical marijuana, anecdotal reports indicate that some patients take the drug at night to avoid these types of problems.

The real debate is about whether long-term use of marijuana (either for medical or recreational purposes) produces persistent cognitive problems. Although early studies of recreational users reported such difficulties, the studies had key design problems. Typically they compared long-term marijuana smokers with people who had never used the drug, for example, without controlling for baseline characteristics (such as education or cognitive functioning) that might determine who continues to smoke the drug and who might be most at risk for thinking and memory problems later on.

Aren't you glad I looked it up for you?

I didn't find anything that indicated light use to be 15 joints a day. Let's see a link for that one.