Trump calls for 'war'

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: StallionDuck

I was born with a heart issue that required open heart surgery when I was seven days old. I had a follow up procedure on my 22nd birthday.

Alcohol and coke has a greater effect on blood pressure and heart rate than weed. Hell caffeine has a greater effect.

If that's you're argument you're either going to have to support banning a ton of stuff or admit it's a weak argument.

I'm not saying it's unsafe. I'm just saying that it also has issues. It's not a perfect 'drug'. People can die from it. Maybe nowhere near the numbers of those that drink but we never studied the long term effects. There are other issues - Smoking and driving for example. Some can handle it, some cant. I know I couldn't. It made me a far worse driver.

I'm actually pro-legalizing it. I no longer do it but I'm totally ok with it. Everyone needs to kick back and chill the hell out with a few puffs. It's far less troublesome than xanax, for example and a lot less addictive.

All I pointed out was that it is NOT as safe as the OP expressed.

Can you OD on it? Yes
Can you die from using it? Yes

Face it... The amount of THC in much of today's strands are many, many times more potent than ever before. It only gets worse. For first timers, that amount of THC can be way too much and it can stop you from breathing or open you up to other issues.

Still... I'm not against it for consenting adults. It's just that there are still risks.

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: roadgravel
When this war gets going, people will get to see real terrorism.

Wives and children of the authorities involved butchered. Lots of those authorities killed.

But it will take some losses to win so people will be OK with it. Right?

So we should just leave them alone? All of the deaths that are attributed from the years more of this activity - drugs - gangs - assassinations.. none of those deaths will count or matter, right?

What do you suggest?

I am just mentioning it will not be "nice". If people understand and want it then go for it.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: StallionDuck

NO ... They wont! If you get rid of the supply, the demand is pointless because there wont be one. Again... it's not a one step process. More needs to go into this.

I humbly submit the great state of colorado.......

or if you like massachusetts.....

is the demand in those places "pointless"?

We're talking pot vs heroin

they're not at all similar


I'm perhaps more passionate about dealing with the heroin problem maybe because I'm a little biased. It's up in front for me. I see what it's doing to people around me, more so to a couple of people I really care alot about. I see them going through this every day and I see what it does to their life - not just physically. I see the struggle. I see the begging behind their addiction to get away from it but lost in vain. As I understand it... It's an addiction that stays with you for the rest of your life even when you're 'free' of it. I"ve known coke addicts and crack addicts but i've never seen the likes of the kind of hold this drug has on its victims.


I'm not against pot in any way other than for adult use only. I think 18 is a little too young but still, that's up to the masses.

a reply to: Xcalibur254
thanks

it just makes me laugh, as almost every ad on the magic picture says dont take this if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure ect.....

but weed is way worse man........

a reply to: StallionDuck
I am ONLY talking about pot.
The rest imo should be controlled.

the cartels would lose money if pot were legal

not all their money, but some is better than none

ps
the articles you linked showing "thc od" and "pot smoke death" are a hoot
keep up the reefer madness man

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: roadgravel
When this war gets going, people will get to see real terrorism.

Wives and children of the authorities involved butchered. Lots of those authorities killed.

But it will take some losses to win so people will be OK with it. Right?

So we should just leave them alone? All of the deaths that are attributed from the years more of this activity - drugs - gangs - assassinations.. none of those deaths will count or matter, right?

What do you suggest?

I am just mentioning it will not be "nice". If people understand and want it then go for it.

I definitely agree. There will be serious repercussions. I think that is this is thought out well enough, we could go in there and strike strategically enough (as long as there are no leaks) with enough intel that it can be done all at once. We've crippled forces this way before. It can be done. We're not going up against a fanatic regime or religion. These may be 'troop' worthy... maybe but the training those guys have is nothing compared to even our basic camp ground pounders.

I would certainly sign up for it for the cause. If that was an option, I would certainly take it. Vigilante or otherwise.

a reply to: StallionDuck

If I wanted to stop people from eating potatoes, what would be more effective: Raiding and bombing the grocery stores or sending cultivators to dig up the fields.

Very few if any big suppliers or cartels have 3D printers, creating their product, so maybe our raids should be on the suppliers.

Trying to wage war against the cartel should start with the source. One main one, we already have control over. It would cost a whole hell of a lot less to pay subsidies to the farmers for the use of their land to grow potatoes than poppies.

I know that I am being overly simplistic here and by no means am I suggesting that this a viable answer by itself. Some of the man-made drugs were created when attempts to circumvent the legal process of drug possession and marketing. Tweaking a opioid in one direction or the other will change its chemical identity, and can make an illegal drug legal, in the eyes of the law, but it can also render it useless or even more deadly.

There are no easy answers here but sending in troops to battle the cartel, I don't think it is the wisest move we can make.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

If I wanted to stop people from eating potatoes

*The British have entered the chat*

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: StallionDuck

NO ... They wont! If you get rid of the supply, the demand is pointless because there wont be one. Again... it's not a one step process. More needs to go into this.

I humbly submit the great state of colorado.......

or if you like massachusetts.....

is the demand in those places "pointless"?

Massachusetts made it twice as expensive to buy it legally, than if you got it from a dealer, so guess where the people that do not have money go?

This crony "Commonwealth" state fattens it's coffers as a first priority, limits the distribution enterprise they promised and could care less about putting weed cartels out of business. I like this state for other reasons, but this certainly is not one of them.

a reply to: StallionDuck

It astonishes me that we have to wait so long, cut through so much red tape to do what's actually right in this country. We can go to war at the drop of a hat but we can't take down known cartels who murder, kill and infest this country with their drugs and gangs!

Of course you cannot take them down. The drugs pay for the illegal wars.



U.S. Government and Top Mexican Drug Cartel Exposed as Partners

For over a decade, under multiple administrations, the U.S. government had a secret agreement with the ruthless Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed it to operate with impunity, an in-depth investigation by a leading Mexican newspaper confirmed this week.

www.thenewamerican.com...

Ww3

a reply to: charlyv
so a very small portion now frequents the black market?
a black market forever changed by legalization?

interesting


i would submit it still damages the "cartels"

The solution to this issue does NOT involve prohibition. That just enriches the cartels. Legalize and control the means of production, distribution and sale. Tax it all. Viola! Cartels out of business.

So many people making this moronic claim. Acting like cartels would ever go legit and submit to regulation and taxes...

Guess what people will still buy when they get desperate? Heroin with out the tax. Heroin with out regulation. Illegal heroin that's more easily sold and bought than it is today. Heroin under the conditions you propose makes the cartels more powerful, not less.

originally posted by: GenerationGap

The solution to this issue does NOT involve prohibition. That just enriches the cartels. Legalize and control the means of production, distribution and sale. Tax it all. Viola! Cartels out of business.

So many people making this moronic claim. Acting like cartels would ever go legit and submit to regulation and taxes...

Guess what people will still buy when they get desperate? Heroin with out the tax. Heroin with out regulation. Illegal heroin that's more easily sold and bought than it is today. Heroin under the conditions you propose makes the cartels more powerful, not less.

Wonder how they're getting it from Afganistan when we have a military occupation there.



It's almost like the war and opiate epidemic are correlated.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: GenerationGap

The solution to this issue does NOT involve prohibition. That just enriches the cartels. Legalize and control the means of production, distribution and sale. Tax it all. Viola! Cartels out of business.

So many people making this moronic claim. Acting like cartels would ever go legit and submit to regulation and taxes...

Guess what people will still buy when they get desperate? Heroin with out the tax. Heroin with out regulation. Illegal heroin that's more easily sold and bought than it is today. Heroin under the conditions you propose makes the cartels more powerful, not less.

Wonder how they're getting it from Afganistan when we have a military occupation there.

It's almost like the war and opiate epidemic are correlated.

Ad-hoc ergo proptor hoc...

I could easily say:

It's almost like expanding opioids for legal medical prescription use has made opioid abuse worse...

Which would tend to make the idea of making it easier to get people's hands on it an even worse idea.

www.pbs.org...

In 1991, doctors wrote 76 million prescriptions. By 2011, that number had nearly tripled, to 219 million, according to a report from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. This rise was made all the more dangerous when drug cartels began flooding the United States with heroin, which was cheaper, more potent, and often easier to acquire than prescription pain meds.

When you give people opioids legally they will turn to cheaper forms coming over the border after legal opioids destroy their ability to buy the expensive stuff.

"Wonder how they're getting it from Afganistan when we have a military occupation there."

Easy, shipping it from Afghanistan to Mexico/Central America. Build the wall! I guess we agree on that at least...

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: StallionDuck

It astonishes me that we have to wait so long, cut through so much red tape to do what's actually right in this country. We can go to war at the drop of a hat but we can't take down known cartels who murder, kill and infest this country with their drugs and gangs!

Of course you cannot take them down. The drugs pay for the illegal wars.



U.S. Government and Top Mexican Drug Cartel Exposed as Partners

For over a decade, under multiple administrations, the U.S. government had a secret agreement with the ruthless Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed it to operate with impunity, an in-depth investigation by a leading Mexican newspaper confirmed this week.

www.thenewamerican.com...

Makes me wonder if the 'new' evidence that lead them to this 'cartel leader' was just a patsy. Not saying it's not possible but you don't often hear of a cartel leader kicking back in Utah.

So apparently it's payback from a cartel head in Utah who for some reasons was having squabbles with the mormons in Utah?

Yeah - this stuff gets weirder by the moment.

a reply to: tanstaafl

So you'd just say "# it" and let them run free and do as they please? You're totally fine with piling on the issues we already have?

Oof. Ok.

originally posted by: StallionDuck

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: CriticalStinker

eh the only deaths from pot are the people with the blackmarket "vape pen" set ups that are getting popcorn lung or what ever its called

Not true.

If you have a heart defect, pot probably isn't right for you. Pot does more than 'relax' you. It actually raises your blood pressure and your heart rate. If you have heart disease then you might die while using it. It's happened. It has other bad effects as well. It's not a symptom free drug that a lot of people think and are being told, quite like you're doing. It CAN have consequences.

Yeah but it's the super cool trendy thing and kids love putting 420 in their screen names (not aimed at cognizant) and pictures of weed leaves as their avatars... Smoking a cigarette was cool and trendy in the 60's and 70's and all the way up until MTV thought it was a bad idea to smoke, yet they'll push constant weed advertisements.

a reply to: shooterbrody
I agree whole heartedly. No argument from me. It is just the strengths today are of concern and over usage.

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: StallionDuck

NO ... They wont! If you get rid of the supply, the demand is pointless because there wont be one. Again... it's not a one step process. More needs to go into this.

I humbly submit the great state of colorado.......

or if you like massachusetts.....

is the demand in those places "pointless"?

Massachusetts made it twice as expensive to buy it legally, than if you got it from a dealer, so guess where the people that do not have money go?

This crony "Commonwealth" state fattens it's coffers as a first priority, limits the distribution enterprise they promised and could care less about putting weed cartels out of business. I like this state for other reasons, but this certainly is not one of them.

The government will always regulate the hell out of it... If you were a smoker and had a tobacco farmer on speed dial, you could probably get a carton of smokes for $8 or $10 bucks instead of paying $50 at the store.