The Southern Terror Front - Why is the State Department hindering the war on narcoterrorists?

WSJ ^ | August 23, 2003

[Tailgunner Joe]

Donald Rumsfeld's recent visit to Colombia is a welcome signal of solidarity toward America's most reliable Latin American ally in the war on terror.

"The Colombians are in every sense holding up their side of the partnership against narcoterrorism, and so we are always trying to find ways that we can be helpful," the Secretary of Defense said in an interview en route to Bogota. Perhaps even some holdouts in the State Department will now get the message.

[FITZ]

If we want to take the criminal element out of drugs than we must take away the incentive for huge profits and legalize the stuff.

The criminal element will still be the criminal element, they will find other crimes to commit. These aren't people who want to work hard for a living, they want the easy money and they are attracted to violence. Already many of the Mexican drug cartels have included plenty of other crimes like extortion and kidnapping for ransom. The last thing they'll do is clean up and flip hamburgers for a few measley bucks.

[doxteve]

The problem is eradication: terrorists and crops are both hard to eradicate. Kind of like belling the cat.

[MrLeRoy]

Who should decide which chemical should be legal and illegal to import or trade between states? The Constitution gives this power to the United States Congress.

On what should they base their decision? All the criteria YOU set forth---"Drug use is an act of self-destruction. [...] Drugs are designed to fool the brain into thinking they're good for it. Fraud is an intrinsic component of every drug sale."---are true of the chemicals alcohol and nicotine. So, again, should Congress ban those? If not, why not?

that's a big load of bull

Marijuana is less addictive than alcohol or tobacco (Institute of Medicine), and unlike alcohol does not increase violence (USDoJ's National Criminal Justice Reference Service) or cause fatal overdoses.

[MrLeRoy]

Even High Times opposes cocaine.

So do I; I also oppose Marxist literature but I don't want it to be illegal.

[MrLeRoy]

they want the easy money

But no money is easier than drug money; removing the big profit margins from that trade will at least give criminals less money to buy weapons and present a flashy lifestyle that lures others into crime.

[sweet_diane]

"In the case of marijuana, the product sold is much more addictive."

Marijuana is more addictive than alcohol and tobacco????

I'm sorry, I can't buy that.

[jimt]

The criminal element will still be the criminal element, they will find other crimes to commit.

But when vices are treated as such, not as crimes, the crimes that are left are those very few people are sympathetic to or apathetic about.

I have a lot more antipathy for a burglar than I do a kid selling weed in the park.

As a minimum, I want every burglar caught before police time and effort is wasted on vices. We're pissing away gazillions in the WOsD. We're criminalizing hundreds of thousands of citizens who have violated no one's rights. Corruption is rife in our police forces because of the cash. Individual rights are being swept out with the trash as SWAT teams conduct no-knock raids that kill and injure innocent citizens.

As another poster said, the War On Drugs is the worst set of policies ever enacted in America.

[MrLeRoy]

In the case of marijuana, the product sold is much more addictive.

False. According to research cited by the Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences, which was created by the federal government to be an adviser on scientific and technological matters), of all those who have ever used marijuana 9% of them became dependent; for alcohol the corresponding figure is a substantially higher 15%, and for tobacco 32%.

It is more likely to decrease economic productivity (and self-sufficiency). It causes a greater moral rot in users. It is more harmful psychologically, often leading to schizophrenia, and causes worse immediate and permanent brain changes than alcohol, which is more incremental. And it causes worse coughing than tobacco.

Provide evidence for these claims.

your sourcing is merely evidence to support an argument that marijuana should be made legal.

"Merely"?

It does not forbid Congress from using other evidence (like common sense), or other criteria of evaluation (like cultural acceptance) as the basis of decision-making.

Within Constitutional limits, Congress can do any damn-fool thing it pleases---does that make any damn-fool thing conservative?

[MrLeRoy]

So if you want crack legalized, why not make arguments about how much better crack is than alcohol or tobacco?

My argument for relegalizing crack is that by doing so we'd reduce the following effects of criminalization: deaths of innocents in drug-turf wars; deaths of users due to impurities or unexpectedly high potencies; enrichment of criminals; corruption of the justice system by enriched criminals; and lessened respect for the law in general.

Not to mention upholding the principle that adults should be free to make their own non-rights-violating choices (even if the choices they make are stupid).

[MrLeRoy]

tobacco [...] doesn't steal your soul and turn you into a zombie.

Alcohol does that more often than marijuana (which is less addictive).

[MrLeRoy]

It is a violation of everyone's rights if someone becomes dependent on other people to live.

So punish that---don't punish non-dependent users of alcohol or other drugs.

[MrLeRoy]

MARIJUANA IS MORE ADDICTIVE THAN ALCOHOL.

False, as I have shown.

"Evidence" does not just include statistics and studies.

Statistics and studies prove more than one person's experience. Can marijuana be more addictive than alcohol to SOME people? I wouldn't be surprised---but the fact remains that on average the opposite is true.

whenever you say that "marijuana is less addictive", do know that you are spreading an insidious and harmful lie

No lie, but the truth.