Posted on 12/25/2009 6:59:30 AM PST by 1rudeboy
...some argue the U.S. should legalize marijuana, let cocaine pass through the Caribbean and take the profit motive out of the drug trade
In the 40 years since U.S. President Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs," the supply and use of drugs has not changed in any fundamental way. The only difference: a taxpayer bill of more than $1 trillion.
A senior Mexican official who has spent more than two decades helping fight the government's war on drugs summed up recently what he's learned from his long career: "This war is not winnable."
[]
Growing numbers of Mexican and U.S. officials say—at least privately—that the biggest step in hurting the business operations of Mexican cartels would be simply to legalize their main product: marijuana. Long the world's most popular illegal drug, marijuana accounts for more than half the revenues of Mexican cartels.
"Economically, there is no argument or solution other than legalization, at least of marijuana," said the top Mexican official matter-of-factly. The official said such a move would likely shift marijuana production entirely to places like California, where the drug can be grown more efficiently and closer to consumers. "Mexico's objective should be to make the U.S. self-sufficient in marijuana," he added with a grin.
He is not alone in his views. Earlier this year, three former Latin American presidents known for their free-market and conservative credentials—Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil—said governments should seriously consider legalizing marijuana as an effective tool against murderous drug gangs.
If the war on drugs has failed, analysts say it is partly because it has been waged almost entirely as a law-and-order issue, without understanding of how cartels work as a business.
For instance, U.S. anti-drug policy inadvertently helped Mexican gangs gain power.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
“Ther should be a pothead ping list.”
It could also double as a “common sense” list.
It does more harm than good. I live in a rural area where "illicit" drugs would be much harder to come by if they were decriminalized or legalized. The use of really dangerous substances thus is far higher than it would be absent drug prohibition. The government can prohibit a substance but it can't prohibit profit motive or repeal self-interest.
Moonshining has been prohibited by the Feds for more than 200 years. I'd say there hasn't been any moonshine produced hereabouts since . . . um . . . this morning. Likewise, there hasn't been any marijuana harvested in this vicinity since, oh, August or September. IMHO, prohibition laws ultimately make a mockery of government.
Saving Mexico?? Who gives a rat’s ass about saving Mexico? I care about stopping the damage Mexico is inflicting on the US.
You're not even close. A lot of us who enjoy smoking marijuana either grow our own or those who grow for us are US citizens. 100% "American-made", like that old country song by the Oak Ridge Boys goes. :-)
My reefer is American made
Grown to harvest in the USA...
I’ve never used marijuana in my life, and likely never will, however I think it should be legalized.
The WSJ article carefully avoids mentioning what is one the biggest obstacles to winning the drug war, that’s official corruption on both sides of the border.
Well said. I’ve long believed that the bad things that come from prohibition far outway the bad things that might come of legalization.
Indeed. There are two groups that profit enormously from the "drug war". The criminals, and the government. (My apologies for repeating myself)
That’s funny, I’ve never seen illegal moonshine once, anywhere. I sure see a lot of beer and wine though all over. Seems you disproved your own point by bringing that up. Oops.
Why do people admit to being criminals online? I guess that’s why they call it dope.
Have you ever smoked a cig or drank a beer?
I don't get the logic here. If you legalize it, but nobody wants it, then they will keep buying the real stuff from mexico.
On another note, this whole potency argument is a canard. You can get 151 rum, but almost nobody drinks it. Consumers know what they want, the idea that they go for whatever has the most of the drug is BS, as the 151 Rum argument shows.
Well, unlike many here, I think it is in our national interest to stop the present and future chaos in Mexico. Legalizing drugs won't do so, IMO.
This is what should be done:
1) Invade Mexico.
2) Fortify a line from Puerto Vallarta to Tampico, and clear a 50-mile deep military frontier behind it.
3) Admit Sonora, Chihuahua, Durango, and both Baja states to the Union, create a protectorate over the rest of the territory North of the new border.
4) Create a border defense force to man the military frontier. Confer US citizenship on soldiers and their dependents after ten years of satisfactory service. Allow these soldiers and their formations to retain Spanish as their language of command.
5) Offer legal residency to any other Mexicans who: Accept English as their language of state, are self-supporting, and who swear a loyalty oath.
6) Deport the rest.
Problem solved, once and for all.
The US has used that theory before. Sure, there are people who will go out of their way to buy white lightning or Cuban cigars, often solely because they are illegal. But it is a far cry from, a fraction of, the legal alcohol or tobacco industry.
Most cases for legalization insist that there will be high taxes associated with legal marijuana sales. But as with tobacco, the actual ingredients used in the cigarettes will be carefully controlled by the manufacturers, likely the tobacco companies. Their marketers have long known that the public would want a marijuana cigarette to look much like a tobacco cigarette, but just different enough so others could tell you were smoking marijuana.
But that much marijuana would be far too strong for most people, so a weaker variety would be needed. And there would also be a lot of wrangling about what ingredients, toxic ingredients, there should be *less* of in marijuana.
The end result is a highly processed, proprietary blend of marijuana, with a fixed amount of THC, with a genetically modified plant to produce fewer toxic components, or those components “bleached” from the marijuana. Or maybe create a variety of hemp without THC, but that is mellower in flavor, then add THC to it later.
All sorts of twists and turns. But the final product would be far removed from the typical marijuana cigarette of today.
Both, with relish.
Why do people admit to being criminals online? I guess that’s why they call it dope.
It appears from his page that he is legally blind, perhaps his pot is legal.
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.