Oh, sorry. Misread the title.
Posted on 05/23/2012 6:53:42 AM PDT by ruralvoter
Mexican government forces had bottled up a band of enemy fighters in this tiny village late last year, but feared they would escape into the dusty, rock-strewn hills. So more than 600 soldiers and federal police closed in from all directions with armored Humvees and helicopters.
The outlaws responded with a barrage of rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 assault-rifle fire, tearing apart one federal police vehicle. For three days the fighting raged.
In the end, according to military accounts of the battle, 22 members of the Zetas drug cartel, two police officers and a soldier were dead, and 20 Zetas were in custody. Dozens more escaped to fight another day.
The battle could have been a scene from the war in Afghanistan, but it erupted just 45 miles south of the Texas border
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
The Feds never seem to prosecute the money launderers.
Ever wonder about that?
Our government is a criminal enterprise staffed by criminals serving the needs of criminals foreign and domestic.
But you knew that, didn't you.
Just legalize drugs. Banning them on the federal level was an overreach anyway (violates the IX and X Amendments).
We could save hundreds of billions of dollars in one fell swoop.
Then name your poison:
1. Better increase welfare for people who are going to be permanently unhirable because of drugs.
2. If you cut off welfare for drug addicts, expect a crime wave, the likes you've never seen before.
Legalize marijuana. Let our home grown potheads bring down the national debt.
but wait, all i ever here is that we can have wonderful, happi shinning government run drug rehab centers, and wonder government run drug dispensaries so folks and grab a snort on the way home from work or on the way to pick up the kids from school...
it will all be so easy and well regulated, and make the drug wars all a thing of the past, right??????
wtf is wrong with people?
Yeah, like the drug war is keeping people from becoming drug addicts. You don't really buy that crap, do you?
2. If you cut off welfare for drug addicts, expect a crime wave, the likes you've never seen before.
So you want your tax dollars to keep going to drug addicts?
How about letting the states decide how to regulate intrastate drug policies? Or do you just ignore the Tenth Amendment when it gets in the way of a policy you like?
And once the government starts getting their cut of that tax revenue from drugs, they will do anything to keep the gravy train going.
Do you think legalizing drugs will increase or decrease the number of people becoming addicted to drugs?
Judging from the description of the confrontation, their mistake was getting into a conventional firefight with the cartel. Once they met resistence, they should have just bombed the compound from the air like a military target. Pulverize it into gravel, then go in and mop up.
Oh, sorry. Misread the title.
You should misread more titles.
Probably little change. Drugs are readily available to anyone who wants them now. IMO, it is nonsense to argue that federal drug laws are keeping would-be addicts clean.
I don't think it is unreasonable to believe that addiction would actually decrease to some extent. There are big bucks to be had for drug dealers if they create addicts. That incentive would disappear if drugs were regulated in a manner similar to alcohol. Alcohol is probably the most widely abused drug in the US, but it does not fuel organized crime. There's a reason for that.
Now let me ask you. Do you think the Tenth Amendment should be honored and let the states regulate intrastate drug policies?
>>Then name your poison:
1. Better increase welfare for people who are going to be permanently unhirable because of drugs.
2. If you cut off welfare for drug addicts, expect a crime wave, the likes you’ve never seen before.<<
You pose a false dichotomy. Legalization of drugs<>additional usage. The current drug users will find them, legal or not. Legalized drugs won’t all of a sudden make them more attractive (we have both tobacco and alcohol as examples of how habits are formed and associated behaviors).
Legalization would give us the opportunity to target and help people who are addicted. Currently, they are “underground.”
That is just a tiny part of the practical argument — you completely ignore my Constitutional argument (and that is more compelling).
>>Oh, sorry. Misread the title.<<
A most excellent misread... :)
So what about the typical suburban user. Where do they do to get their fix......the hood, right?
Now, knowing that, how many potential users are discouraged from using simply because of this fact?
Now if they could get their fix in a more comfortable environment, I suspect that lowers the barrier a bit.
To quote Dennis Miller, “that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.”
I would just conclude with two words, “Opium Dens.”
It's not the laws per se, but moreso the stigma.....Legalizing drugs somewhat removes the stigma.
>>So what about the typical suburban user. Where do they do to get their fix......the hood, right?<<
Nope — they get it in the suburbs.
>>Now, knowing that, how many potential users are discouraged from using simply because of this fact?<<
Zero.
>>Now if they could get their fix in a more comfortable environment, I suspect that lowers the barrier a bit.<<
You suspect wrong. Addiction is internally driven and external factors are all but meaningless.
>>To quote Dennis Miller, “that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.”<<
And you are.
>>I would just conclude with two words, “Opium Dens.”<<
Up until the late 1960s, most drugs were perfectly legal. There may have been opium dens but those people would go after the drugs anyway.
You haven’t made any kind of a compelling argument and still skip the illegality of the WOD.
We lost the war — let’s stop throwing good money after bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.