Posted on 07/06/2012 4:52:57 PM PDT by BfloGuy
From the New York Times article, "Numbers Tell of Failure in Drug War the War on Peaceful Americans Who Voluntary Choose to Use Intoxicants Not Currently Approved of By U.S. Politicians and Government Officials":
"When policy makers in Washington worry about Mexico these days, they think in terms of a handful of numbers: Mexico’s 19,500 hectares devoted to poppy cultivation for heroin; its 17,500 hectares growing cannabis; the 95 percent of American cocaine imports brought by Mexican cartels through Mexico and Central America.
They are thinking about the wrong numbers. If there is one number that embodies the seemingly intractable challenge imposed by the illegal drug trade on the relationship between the United States and Mexico, it is $177.26. That is the retail price, according to Drug Enforcement Administration data, of one gram of pure cocaine from your typical local pusher. That is 74 percent cheaper than it was 30 years ago.
Prices match supply with demand. If the supply of an illicit drug were to fall, say because the Drug Enforcement Administration stopped it from reaching the nation’s shores, we should expect its price to go up.
That is not what happened with cocaine. 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.
These numbers contain pretty much all you need to evaluate the Mexican and American governments’ “war” to eradicate illegal drugs from the streets of the United States. They would do well to heed its message. What it says is that the struggle on which they have spent billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of lives over the last four decades has failed.
Most important, conceived to eradicate the illegal drug market, the war on drugs cannot be won. Once they understand this, the Mexican and American governments may consider refocusing their strategies to take aim at what really matters: the health and security of their citizens, communities and nations."
The cartels have figured out that they can smuggle drugs by mixing them in with potential voters and watching the Democrats suck them across the border by capillary action.
intrastate? Hard drugs pour across borders into our local friendly Seven Elevens. Crime gangs crossing borders to slaughter each other (and yes there will be gangs) And we couldn’t stop that? What are you smoking?
A little while ago, you posted:
Heroin and cocaine are not handed out like Slurpees at Seven-Eleven.
You've got some schizo Seven-Eleven's out there.
You sound like Nancy Pelosi - 'Are you SERIOUS?' Be that as it may, answer the question put to you. It's a very simple one.
Which section of the Constitution do you believe delegates to Congress the power to regulate intrastate drug policies?
I remember it being $30-50 a gram 30 years ago. Is that what Obama paid?
Muslims have always been big drug users. Iran has no interest in getting rid of drugs in their society. They count on their population being on drugs to control them.
The ONDCP says the price for 1 gm of pure cocaine in 1982 was $590 v the $177 today.
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/fed-data/cocaine-prices.htm
How is it LOGICAL to assume as you have done that the Marines and Armed forces have inferior intellect, worse firepower, and poorer strategic abilities than some cavemen out to get 72 virgins after they die?
The war on drugs has nothing to do with this. This is achieved through a simple law not permitting them to sell drugs. There is a difference between a simple law such as the one on preventing liquor sales to minors and the war on drugs. The term 'war on drugs' also includes millions of dollars funneled away by corrupt politicians and their cronies in the name of fighting the war on drugs. Most of these politicians are RINOs who are supported by frightened conservatives who have been told that the only way to prevent a proliferation of drugs in our society is if we give them the money to fight the war on drugs.
Well-now we know the why, on the general level at least: man is helplessly and hopelessly broken. (Fortunately there is a God, and He can fix that and be hope for the hopeless and and help for the helpless.) But that answer is not intuitively translated into "real-life" actions, is it?
Sending men with guns to beat down those distributing it is not the answer.
Depriving people of their dignity is not the answer.
Screaming and whining about the evils of alcohol is not the answer.
The real answer, for many of their particular WHY, is absurdly simple: love them. Why do you think people seek to escape reality? Because in reality they feel alone, unvalued, unloved, and/or injustice.
Indeed, I predict there will be a strong rise in alcoholism (and perhaps other drugs) as government becomes more and more intrusive; nothing says "you don't matter" like a government organization, nothing says "you have no value" like the faceless bureaucracy that makes you jump through hoops at their whim, and nothing perpetrates injustice like a group that deems itself above all reckoning.
Actually the US government is pretty serious about crimes against the US government.
For example, when bank robbery went from a crime against private citizens to a crime against the government that insures banks, bank robbery pretty quickly went from a professional criminal’s crime to usual an amateur’s crime.
So if the US government decided to tax and regulated various drugs, they would pretty quickly run other criminal organizations out of that business. They certainly did when prohibition was ended.
But as prohibition shows us, professional criminals will likely find other ways to make money as they quickly did after prohibition ended.
I was talking about the libertarian utopia. Today hard drugs are not handed out like Slurpees, tomorrow they are.
Domestic tranquility, justice, common defense — all that my friend. Control of the borders from violent drug-crazed criminals — working closely with local police — is essential to keep cocaine out of Slurpees in Seven-Eleven. Only a late-sleeping overeducated libertarian could fail to see that.
Who will enforce that law against the local convenience stores selling drugs? Don’t they have a constitutional right to do?
Should we be impressed that you can kick the strawman's ass?
You: Domestic tranquility, justice, common defense — all that my friend
The Preamble?? You have got to be kidding me! I continue to be amazed at the level of ignorance and/or contempt for the Constitution by some posters here.
The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution’s fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as RELIABLE EVIDENCE of, the Founding Fathers’ intentions regarding the Constitution’s meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.
Yes, thank you, my brilliance is impressive. The libertarian utopia, dreams unrestrained by reality, is filled with strawmen. Not only with straw but also weed, seeds, leaves, hemp, coca, and poppies.
Right, but you cited the Preamble as delegating a specific power to Congress. Do you wish to retract that?
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.