What was the meaning of the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment?

[Uncensored2008]

Having those drugs in your country definitely contributes to violence. A country doesn't have the right to make and export drugs. If there is any violence, it's on them.

Comrade stupid, it isn't the drugs, but the prohibition of drugs and the obscene profits of the black market that create the violence.

It's on you, and the other authoritarian ***** like you.

 

[saveliberty]

I have to wait for the 48 hour rule. What's your excuse?

 

[Dubya]

It's been linked and posted. It's called a dictionary that has the obsolete definition.

in·fringe (n-frnj)
v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es
v.tr.
1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

Source: infringe - definition of infringe by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was to not disarm the populace. That's also supported by what the Founders said. That's why the thread was started, because some people don't know the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment and it's because of confusion involving the word infringed. Get the picture?

Even for a communist, you are insanely stupid.

You are attempting to apply an obscure and plainly obsolete usage improperly.

Comrade, please cite ANY passage from the founding fathers that supports your absurd contention that they ignored the accepted meaning of the word - the 17 times they used it in the Bill of Rights, and instead took your alternate meaning?

I won't hold my breath, you support nothing you spew. This is just some shit you read on a hate site and have decided to run with.

I'm attempting to tell an idiot that the Founders wrote their reasonings for having the 2nd Amendment and since they weren't a dummy, like you, they were educated with Latin. It's obvious the word had a different meaning in 1789, because the first American dictionary says it means to break. The UK had dictionaries before we did, so use a contemporary dictionary and not the modern definition.

It's been posted and since you made the point, you prove what the definition of infringed was in 1789. I'm not going to repost facts for every idiot on this site.

You're a ******* coward who hides behind a computer calling a Vietnam Era Marine a communist. You aren't worth the time of day, ************! Go to your local VFW and try it, fool!

 

[Dubya]

Keep justifying your penchant for violence while stumping to keep people from protecting themselves from the very violence you are so ready to commit.

and you have the nerve to call other people crazy?

The violence is keeping the status quo. Without an open market for guns and the drug supply running out, the cities wouldn't have the problems they have. Those proposals are solutions. If you want to stop drugs, you go to the source and you can find it on satellite. The cities would chill out, because there isn't much other crime they could be involved in. They would be smoking their weed and going on with their lives.

So now you think you can end violence and wipe out entire species of fauna by any means necessary (including dropping bombs) all in the name of a nonviolent society?

Crazier and crazier.

If the ******* cops weren't running around breaking down doors because some guy likes to use a little dope on the weekends people could chill out.

Leave people who aren't hurting anyone alone and the world will be a more peaceful place.

Imposing your will via violence does nothing to promote anything but more violence.

Coca is grown on plantations, large plantations!

I compromised the existing law. Legalize pot and stop the hard drugs at the source. Cops won't be bothered by drugs and they aren't kicking down doors at present. Our prisons will empty and you can smoke pot until your heart's content. No harm done!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm attempting to tell an idiot that the Founders wrote their reasonings for having the 2nd Amendment and since they weren't a dummy, like you, they were educated with Latin. It's obvious the word had a different meaning in 1789, because the first American dictionary says it means to break. The UK had dictionaries before we did, so use a contemporary dictionary and not the modern definition.

Then it should be a simple matter for a good Communist like you to provide a citation that supports your contention.

It's been posted and since you made the point, you prove what the definition of infringed was in 1789. I'm not going to repost facts for every idiot on this site.

The obsolete definition is irrelevant.

You see, you glom on to this idiocy at the hate sites you frequent, and think "Wow, this is a perfect argument." then you come here and post the bit of stupidity and expect everyone to be dumbfounded by your cut & paste brilliance. The problem you have is that the majority of the right is well educated and intelligent, unlike you, and the majority of the left. As such, we instantly recognize the fallacy in the argument, and ask that you support your idiotic claim with a cited quote from one or more of the founding fathers. If the argument that you cribbed from Communist Dreams or Think Progress had any merit, this would be a simple task. But since it isn't your argument, and you lack any reasoning skill (I assume you lack anything beyond a high school education) you don't grasp the depth of your defeat.

You're a ******* coward who hides behind a computer calling a Vietnam Era Marine a communist. You aren't worth the time of day, ************! Go to your local VFW and try it, fool!

Dubya, you are a Communist. What you advocate here, the disarmament of the populace coupled with a police state, are exactly the policies of Hanoi in the 1960's. Coupled with your advocacy for socialist economic policies - which you lack the education to grasp, but nonetheless advocate, it is entirely correct that I identify you as what you are, a Communist.

 

[saveliberty]

Dubya hasn't been told by his handlers/posting source that he is a communist.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The violence is keeping the status quo. Without an open market for guns and the drug supply running out, the cities wouldn't have the problems they have. Those proposals are solutions. If you want to stop drugs, you go to the source and you can find it on satellite. The cities would chill out, because there isn't much other crime they could be involved in. They would be smoking their weed and going on with their lives.

So now you think you can end violence and wipe out entire species of fauna by any means necessary (including dropping bombs) all in the name of a nonviolent society?

Crazier and crazier.

If the ******* cops weren't running around breaking down doors because some guy likes to use a little dope on the weekends people could chill out.

Leave people who aren't hurting anyone alone and the world will be a more peaceful place.

Imposing your will via violence does nothing to promote anything but more violence.

Coca is grown on plantations, large plantations!

So what? It also grows wild all over the place where the climate is favorable.

I compromised the existing law. Legalize pot and stop the hard drugs at the source. Cops won't be bothered by drugs and they aren't kicking down doors at present. Our prisons will empty and you can smoke pot until your heart's content. No harm done!

[/quote]

Cops aren't kicking down doors?

Where the **** do you live.

Something like 80,000 no knock warrants are issued annually

Critics knock no-knock police raids - USATODAY.com

At times, particularly in drug cases, police make their case for no-knock search warrants based on faulty information from unreliable informants, says Ezekiel Edwards, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

So if you have a joint you risk getting killed by the ******* government.

If you legalized all drugs and took a tenth of the money wasted on the failure that is the war on drugs and funded rehab programs drug related violence would come to an end.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/business/in-rethinking-the-war-on-drugs-start-with-the-numbers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Despite billions spent on measures from spraying coca fields high in the Andes to jailing local dealers in Miami or Washington, a gram of cocaine cost about 16 percent less last year than it did in 2001. The drop is similar for heroin and methamphetamine. The only drug that has not experienced a significant fall in price is marijuana

.

How many billions have been spent on the war on drugs and how many people have died because of it?

It is an utter failure and has done absolutely nothing to reduce drug use.

The use of hard drugs, meanwhile, has remained roughly stable over the last two decades, rising by a few percentage points in the 1990s and declining by a few percentage points over the last decade, with consumption patterns moving from one drug to another according to fashion and ease of purchase.

For instance, 2.9 percent of high school seniors admit to having tried cocaine in the last year, just slightly less than in 1992. About 15 percent of seniors said they abused a prescription drug last year. Twenty years ago, prescription drug abuse was not even consistently measured

So tell me how many people do you want to kill and how many hectares of foreign lands do you want to obliterate with bombs now all to fulfill your fantasy of a safe drug free society?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe the value of the human life is worth more than any amount of revenue. I prefer my suggestions that will inconvenience a gun owner an hour or so a year, but it will eventually pay off in peace of mind as guns are removed from criminals.

Life in prison for a gun crime would do the same thing and only inconvenience the actual criminals

Do right-winger ever demonstrate having good reasoning skills?

Asks the guy who has to lie in order to make a point.

 

[Dubya]

Start a thread if you want to talk about drugs, fool!

You already messed up your post and didn't edit it, Thick Skull!

 

[Dubya]

Dubya hasn't been told by his handlers/posting source that he is a communist.

Troll on, fool!

 

[Skull Pilot]

Start a thread if you want to talk about drugs, fool!

You already messed up your post and didn't edit it, Thick Skull!

So all you got is a comment about an extra quote command?

Can't refute the point that your violence will not end violence nor make anyone safer just as your controlling every weapon will not prevent violence?

 

[Dubya]

Start a thread if you want to talk about drugs, fool!

You already messed up your post and didn't edit it, Thick Skull!

So all you got is a comment about an extra quote command?

Can't refute the point that your violence will not end violence nor make anyone safer just as your controlling every weapon will not prevent violence?

Napalming a field isn't violence. Let me paint you a picture of the violence!

You're in Bolivia where the Socialist Evo Morales reigns. Before entering politics he was the General Secretary of the Cocalero Union. From what I understand there is about a month long period two time per year to pick coca. The poor natives go to these hugh plantations and pick those leaves and there is no violence, so the poor natives make a little bit of money. The leaves are sent to be processed into crack, which is cocaine free base or the way it exists on the leaf. It's all peaceful there, too. Bolivia is a landlocked country and it's not the only country involved in the drug trade. You have Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. The drug Cartels aren't in Colombia like they used to be, but Colombia has a constant battle with drugs. The other countries are a different story. Peru puts up some resistance to the drug trade, but Ecuador wants to be another Bolivia, because it's so peaceful there.

Colombia is a perfect example of the drug trade not being so peaceful. Once the drugs are in the hands of the Cartels, then you have Judges and public officials being murdered. You have all that nonsense going on in Mexico and wars between street gangs in America. There is the violence of the present and it all starts with some natives picking leaves.

Now since the world has a crack and cocaine problem, it isn't that hard to solve. It takes a couple years to grow a coca bush and it can be cut down in seconds. It isn't like poppies that will grow back each year. South America itself has an appetite for coca and even soft drinks made from it. The world's coca problem doesn't come from some peasant having a few bushes on his property or wild coca in the jungle, it comes from those plantations. The world just simply has to put it's foot down and tell the country it won't be allowed to export coca. Get rid of the plantations or we'll get rid of them for you! The rogue country just has to be told and no negotiation, no discussion, now better be when you get started or else.

The crack would disappear from American streets and the Mexican Drug Cartels. There are international laws against exporting drugs and marijuana is one of them. There are only laws in this country making marijuana illegal that need to be changed. The best thing to do with pot is legalize it. It isn't that harmful and could probably be produced cheaper than tobacco. Don't tax it and keep it cheap to destroy the black market. It will be illegal to export pot and that's it.

The problem with those two drugs in America are easy to solve.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Start a thread if you want to talk about drugs, fool!

You already messed up your post and didn't edit it, Thick Skull!

So all you got is a comment about an extra quote command?

Can't refute the point that your violence will not end violence nor make anyone safer just as your controlling every weapon will not prevent violence?

Napalming a field isn't violence. Let me paint you a picture of the violence!

You're in Bolivia where the Socialist Evo Morales reigns. Before entering politics he was the General Secretary of the Cocalero Union. From what I understand there is about a month long period two time per year to pick coca. The poor natives go to these hugh plantations and pick those leaves and there is no violence, so the poor natives make a little bit of money. The leaves are sent to be processed into crack, which is cocaine free base or the way it exists on the leaf. It's all peaceful there, too. Bolivia is a landlocked country and it's not the only country involved in the drug trade. You have Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. The drug Cartels aren't in Colombia like they used to be, but Colombia has a constant battle with drugs. The other countries are a different story. Peru puts up some resistance to the drug trade, but Ecuador wants to be another Bolivia, because it's so peaceful there.

Colombia is a perfect example of the drug trade not being so peaceful. Once the drugs are in the hands of the Cartels, then you have Judges and public officials being murdered. You have all that nonsense going on in Mexico and wars between street gangs in America. There is the violence of the present and it all starts with some natives picking leaves.

Now since the world has a crack and cocaine problem, it isn't that hard to solve. It takes a couple years to grow a coca bush and it can be cut down in seconds. It isn't like poppies that will grow back each year. South America itself has an appetite for coca and even soft drinks made from it. The world's coca problem doesn't come from some peasant having a few bushes on his property or wild coca in the jungle, it comes from those plantations. The world just simply has to put it's foot down and tell the country it won't be allowed to export coca. Get rid of the plantations or we'll get rid of them for you! The rogue country just has to be told and no negotiation, no discussion, now better be when you get started or else.

The crack would disappear from American streets and the Mexican Drug Cartels. There are international laws against exporting drugs and marijuana is one of them. There are only laws in this country making marijuana illegal that need to be changed. The best thing to do with pot is legalize it. It isn't that harmful and could probably be produced cheaper than tobacco. Don't tax it and keep it cheap to destroy the black market. It will be illegal to export pot and that's it.

The problem with those two drugs in America are easy to solve.

So now dropping "weapons of war" on foreign soil is not violence?

Why don't you ask the innocent victims of US bombings that and see what their opinion is on that one?

And I have shown you that your war on drugs has done nothing to lower drug use even with the spraying of thousands of hectares of coca fields in the Andes at the cost of billions of dollars.

It's just like your gun control theory: useless in the real world.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Troll on, fool!

Do you honestly not grasp that you are a Communist, promoting the type of government and economy that the North Vietnamese had?

Are you really this stupid?

You run around here demanding a disarmed populace, living in a police state, where the government manages or outright owns the means of production.

In what way do you differ from Ho Chi Minh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dubya hasn't been told by his handlers/posting source that he is a communist.

Troll on, fool!

says the guy who has to lie in order to make a point.

 

[Dubya]

So all you got is a comment about an extra quote command?

Can't refute the point that your violence will not end violence nor make anyone safer just as your controlling every weapon will not prevent violence?

Napalming a field isn't violence. Let me paint you a picture of the violence!

You're in Bolivia where the Socialist Evo Morales reigns. Before entering politics he was the General Secretary of the Cocalero Union. From what I understand there is about a month long period two time per year to pick coca. The poor natives go to these hugh plantations and pick those leaves and there is no violence, so the poor natives make a little bit of money. The leaves are sent to be processed into crack, which is cocaine free base or the way it exists on the leaf. It's all peaceful there, too. Bolivia is a landlocked country and it's not the only country involved in the drug trade. You have Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. The drug Cartels aren't in Colombia like they used to be, but Colombia has a constant battle with drugs. The other countries are a different story. Peru puts up some resistance to the drug trade, but Ecuador wants to be another Bolivia, because it's so peaceful there.

Colombia is a perfect example of the drug trade not being so peaceful. Once the drugs are in the hands of the Cartels, then you have Judges and public officials being murdered. You have all that nonsense going on in Mexico and wars between street gangs in America. There is the violence of the present and it all starts with some natives picking leaves.

Now since the world has a crack and cocaine problem, it isn't that hard to solve. It takes a couple years to grow a coca bush and it can be cut down in seconds. It isn't like poppies that will grow back each year. South America itself has an appetite for coca and even soft drinks made from it. The world's coca problem doesn't come from some peasant having a few bushes on his property or wild coca in the jungle, it comes from those plantations. The world just simply has to put it's foot down and tell the country it won't be allowed to export coca. Get rid of the plantations or we'll get rid of them for you! The rogue country just has to be told and no negotiation, no discussion, now better be when you get started or else.

The crack would disappear from American streets and the Mexican Drug Cartels. There are international laws against exporting drugs and marijuana is one of them. There are only laws in this country making marijuana illegal that need to be changed. The best thing to do with pot is legalize it. It isn't that harmful and could probably be produced cheaper than tobacco. Don't tax it and keep it cheap to destroy the black market. It will be illegal to export pot and that's it.

The problem with those two drugs in America are easy to solve.

So now dropping "weapons of war" on foreign soil is not violence?

Why don't you ask the innocent victims of US bombings that and see what their opinion is on that one?

And I have shown you that your war on drugs has done nothing to lower drug use even with the spraying of thousands of hectares of coca fields in the Andes at the cost of billions of dollars.

It's just like your gun control theory: useless in the real world.

Isn't Richard Nixon dead? Did he leave his war on drugs to me in his will?

Drugs like cocaine and opiates are too dangerous to legalize, fool! It isn't going to be pie in the sky if they are legalized, fool!

They can go in there and cut the coca down by themselves. Maybe the nations will pay them to do it and convert those plantation to producing something useful. They have no right on Earth growing coca for export.

 

[Koios]

Napalming a field isn't violence. Let me paint you a picture of the violence!

You're in Bolivia where the Socialist Evo Morales reigns. Before entering politics he was the General Secretary of the Cocalero Union. From what I understand there is about a month long period two time per year to pick coca. The poor natives go to these hugh plantations and pick those leaves and there is no violence, so the poor natives make a little bit of money. The leaves are sent to be processed into crack, which is cocaine free base or the way it exists on the leaf. It's all peaceful there, too. Bolivia is a landlocked country and it's not the only country involved in the drug trade. You have Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. The drug Cartels aren't in Colombia like they used to be, but Colombia has a constant battle with drugs. The other countries are a different story. Peru puts up some resistance to the drug trade, but Ecuador wants to be another Bolivia, because it's so peaceful there.

Colombia is a perfect example of the drug trade not being so peaceful. Once the drugs are in the hands of the Cartels, then you have Judges and public officials being murdered. You have all that nonsense going on in Mexico and wars between street gangs in America. There is the violence of the present and it all starts with some natives picking leaves.

Now since the world has a crack and cocaine problem, it isn't that hard to solve. It takes a couple years to grow a coca bush and it can be cut down in seconds. It isn't like poppies that will grow back each year. South America itself has an appetite for coca and even soft drinks made from it. The world's coca problem doesn't come from some peasant having a few bushes on his property or wild coca in the jungle, it comes from those plantations. The world just simply has to put it's foot down and tell the country it won't be allowed to export coca. Get rid of the plantations or we'll get rid of them for you! The rogue country just has to be told and no negotiation, no discussion, now better be when you get started or else.

The crack would disappear from American streets and the Mexican Drug Cartels. There are international laws against exporting drugs and marijuana is one of them. There are only laws in this country making marijuana illegal that need to be changed. The best thing to do with pot is legalize it. It isn't that harmful and could probably be produced cheaper than tobacco. Don't tax it and keep it cheap to destroy the black market. It will be illegal to export pot and that's it.

The problem with those two drugs in America are easy to solve.

So now dropping "weapons of war" on foreign soil is not violence?

Why don't you ask the innocent victims of US bombings that and see what their opinion is on that one?

And I have shown you that your war on drugs has done nothing to lower drug use even with the spraying of thousands of hectares of coca fields in the Andes at the cost of billions of dollars.

It's just like your gun control theory: useless in the real world.

Isn't Richard Nixon dead? Did he leave his war on drugs to me in his will?

Drugs like cocaine and opiates are too dangerous to legalize, fool! It isn't going to be pie in the sky if they are legalized, fool!

They can go in there and cut the coca down by themselves. Maybe the nations will pay them to do it and convert those plantation to producing something useful. They have no right on Earth growing coca for export.

In that we agree. Pot is pretty benign, and also widely used. So I'd advocate its, and only its, leaglization.

But I would prefer more elicit drug use be treated as a public health and poverty issue, and less as a criminal justice matter. Locking up more of our citizens than any other modern nation has proven an abject failure, and many believe, worsens the problem.

For example, you catch a kid with some dime rocks of crack working the corner. Tossing him/her into jail makes the community less safe; they get out, and have job prospects near zero, while at the same time are more criminalized, with great new contacts and skills learned while in jail. Then we dump them right back into the community, we supposedly were keeping safer by jailing them. Stupid.

How about probabtion, picking up litter on the highway, treatment if they're a user, and all the while they're still employable, helping the baby and baby momma out, if they have one or both, etc, etc? What's the comparitive risk of the individual, if jailed vs. treated as what they really are: naughty kid, doing naughty stuff, non violently. Give em community service.

 

[Dubya]

So now dropping "weapons of war" on foreign soil is not violence?

Why don't you ask the innocent victims of US bombings that and see what their opinion is on that one?

And I have shown you that your war on drugs has done nothing to lower drug use even with the spraying of thousands of hectares of coca fields in the Andes at the cost of billions of dollars.

It's just like your gun control theory: useless in the real world.

Isn't Richard Nixon dead? Did he leave his war on drugs to me in his will?

Drugs like cocaine and opiates are too dangerous to legalize, fool! It isn't going to be pie in the sky if they are legalized, fool!

They can go in there and cut the coca down by themselves. Maybe the nations will pay them to do it and convert those plantation to producing something useful. They have no right on Earth growing coca for export.

In that we agree. Pot is pretty benign, and also widely used. So I'd advocate its, and only its, leaglization.

But I would prefer more elicit drug use be treated as a public health and poverty issue, and less as a criminal justice matter. Locking up more of our citizens than any other modern nation has proven an abject failure, and many believe, worsens the problem.

For example, you catch a kid with some dime rocks of crack working the corner. Tossing him/her into jail makes the community less safe; they get out, and have job prospects near zero, while at the same time are more criminalized, with great new contacts and skills learned while in jail. Then we dump them right back into the community, we supposedly were keeping safer by jailing them. Stupid.

How about probabtion, picking up litter on the highway, treatment if they're a user, and all the while they're still employable, helping the baby and baby momma out, if they have one or both, etc, etc? What's the comparitive risk of the individual, if jailed vs. treated as what they really are: naughty kid, doing naughty stuff, non violently. Give em community service.

I don't have a problem with any of that. Jailing people over drugs is rather stupid, unless they are major distributors of harmful drugs.

 

[Koios]

Isn't Richard Nixon dead? Did he leave his war on drugs to me in his will?

Drugs like cocaine and opiates are too dangerous to legalize, fool! It isn't going to be pie in the sky if they are legalized, fool!

They can go in there and cut the coca down by themselves. Maybe the nations will pay them to do it and convert those plantation to producing something useful. They have no right on Earth growing coca for export.

In that we agree. Pot is pretty benign, and also widely used. So I'd advocate its, and only its, leaglization.

But I would prefer more elicit drug use be treated as a public health and poverty issue, and less as a criminal justice matter. Locking up more of our citizens than any other modern nation has proven an abject failure, and many believe, worsens the problem.

For example, you catch a kid with some dime rocks of crack working the corner. Tossing him/her into jail makes the community less safe; they get out, and have job prospects near zero, while at the same time are more criminalized, with great new contacts and skills learned while in jail. Then we dump them right back into the community, we supposedly were keeping safer by jailing them. Stupid.

How about probabtion, picking up litter on the highway, treatment if they're a user, and all the while they're still employable, helping the baby and baby momma out, if they have one or both, etc, etc? What's the comparitive risk of the individual, if jailed vs. treated as what they really are: naughty kid, doing naughty stuff, non violently. Give em community service.

I don't have a problem with any of that. Jailing people over drugs is rather stupid, unless they are major distributors of harmful drugs.

Agree totally. I'd add, any violent offenders, i.e. gang members plying the trade in violent ways.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Napalming a field isn't violence. Let me paint you a picture of the violence!

You're in Bolivia where the Socialist Evo Morales reigns. Before entering politics he was the General Secretary of the Cocalero Union. From what I understand there is about a month long period two time per year to pick coca. The poor natives go to these hugh plantations and pick those leaves and there is no violence, so the poor natives make a little bit of money. The leaves are sent to be processed into crack, which is cocaine free base or the way it exists on the leaf. It's all peaceful there, too. Bolivia is a landlocked country and it's not the only country involved in the drug trade. You have Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. The drug Cartels aren't in Colombia like they used to be, but Colombia has a constant battle with drugs. The other countries are a different story. Peru puts up some resistance to the drug trade, but Ecuador wants to be another Bolivia, because it's so peaceful there.

Colombia is a perfect example of the drug trade not being so peaceful. Once the drugs are in the hands of the Cartels, then you have Judges and public officials being murdered. You have all that nonsense going on in Mexico and wars between street gangs in America. There is the violence of the present and it all starts with some natives picking leaves.

Now since the world has a crack and cocaine problem, it isn't that hard to solve. It takes a couple years to grow a coca bush and it can be cut down in seconds. It isn't like poppies that will grow back each year. South America itself has an appetite for coca and even soft drinks made from it. The world's coca problem doesn't come from some peasant having a few bushes on his property or wild coca in the jungle, it comes from those plantations. The world just simply has to put it's foot down and tell the country it won't be allowed to export coca. Get rid of the plantations or we'll get rid of them for you! The rogue country just has to be told and no negotiation, no discussion, now better be when you get started or else.

The crack would disappear from American streets and the Mexican Drug Cartels. There are international laws against exporting drugs and marijuana is one of them. There are only laws in this country making marijuana illegal that need to be changed. The best thing to do with pot is legalize it. It isn't that harmful and could probably be produced cheaper than tobacco. Don't tax it and keep it cheap to destroy the black market. It will be illegal to export pot and that's it.

The problem with those two drugs in America are easy to solve.

So now dropping "weapons of war" on foreign soil is not violence?

Why don't you ask the innocent victims of US bombings that and see what their opinion is on that one?

And I have shown you that your war on drugs has done nothing to lower drug use even with the spraying of thousands of hectares of coca fields in the Andes at the cost of billions of dollars.

It's just like your gun control theory: useless in the real world.

Isn't Richard Nixon dead? Did he leave his war on drugs to me in his will?

Drugs like cocaine and opiates are too dangerous to legalize, fool! It isn't going to be pie in the sky if they are legalized, fool!

says you. Those drugs are only dangerous to those who choose to use them and if someone does want to use them then it's none of your ******* business.

They can go in there and cut the coca down by themselves. Maybe the nations will pay them to do it and convert those plantation to producing something useful. They have no right on Earth growing coca for export.

You mean something you think is useful.

5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results: Scientific American