Trump calls for 'war'

originally posted by: LSU2018
So you'd just say "# it" and let them run free and do as they please?

You mean like people do right now where alcohol/drinking is concerned?

The reality is, 99.9% of people who want to use drugs will do so whether it is legal or not.

So, to answer your question directly:

Yes, I absolutely believe in the animating contest of freedom over some false perception of 'safety' every day.

You're totally fine with piling on the issues we already have?

You make the false assumption that treating all drugs just like we do alcohol will result in a major increases in drug use.

I challenge any such assertion. In fact, I think there may be a slight rise in the beginning, but that soon thereafter, there will actually be a decline in drug use, but in addition to that, a major reduction in crime associated with drugs and drug use over time, especially where children are concerned.

originally posted by: tanstaafl


...but in addition to that, a major reduction in crime associated with drugs and drug use over time, especially where children are concerned.

This is what most people fail to consider.

I'm not (and I don't think anyone calling for across the board legalization is) saying drug use will stop or go down or up or sideways.

If we only get the MAJOR benefit of reduced drug-related crime, then that's a win.

Druggies gonna drug. Nothing we're doing is stopping that. Let's try something that will take a lot of the criminal element out of the drug game. How can we make the current situation worse, really?

But, drugs bad [often said by the same people who will drive home after "two" beers at the bar...].

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot
I'm not (and I don't think anyone calling for across the board legalization is) saying drug use will stop or go down or up or sideways.

If we only get the MAJOR benefit of reduced drug-related crime, then that's a win.

And that wouldn't be the only win. Think of the associated wins - much fewer people clogging the courts with non-violent 'drug offenses', and consequently fewer people in jails - costs drop dramatically across the board.

Not to mention the elimination of the police state raids on peoples homes and the associated loss of life (we have a little 92 yr old lady here in Atlanta that was murdered by the police due to a wrong house number, and there are countless examples of this, murdered dogs, etc) - maybe we can even re-institute the castle doctrine, and the police can go back to being peace officers instead of fascist drug policy enforcers.

There's only one way to deal with drug cartels.

Drones, and seal teams.

Send them all to their coc aine god.

The cartels are harming us more than Muslim terrorists by many orders of magnitude, yet where are our armed forces fighting overseas? In the Middle East, Africa and Afghanistan. The cartels control human trafficking that costs us billions of dollars annually in so many ways: having to search vehicles and people at border crossings, patrolling the border and inland checkpoints, crimes against U.S. citizens, educating illegal aliens, health care for illegal aliens, etc.

The environmental impact of illegal aliens is enormous. They leave tons of trash in the Southwest and just imagine all the feces they’ve left on the landscape, often on public lands. No true environmentalist can ignore the damage done.

And consider the increased greenhouse gas emissions resulting when someone moves from Mesoamerica to the USA. People are simply going to consume more resources in our incomparably wasteful and resource intensive nation. How many illegal aliens buy a cheap, used care ASAP; an older model that emits more exhaust than newer cars?

The cartels are thought to provide up to 90 percent of the heroin, coc aine and fentanyl flooding the country. I don’t know how many of our 70,000 annual overdose deaths are caused by cartel-supplied drugs, but it must be considerable. I would guess the death toll from cartel drugs could be hundreds of times more than deaths inflicted by terrorists on U.S. citizens.

The cartels have carved out marijuana plantations in national forests all over California, causing immense environmental damage. However, the recent legalization of cannabis there will doubtless make this less profitable. I suppose they could sell their weed in states where it’s illegal.

So I think it’s pretty clear the cartels are one of the biggest existential threats to America at the moment. I would rank China ahead of the cartels as an existential threat, and perhaps legal immigration, too, although the latter is a self-inflicted disaster. I don’t discount Muslim terrorism by any means; we need to be ceaselessly vigilant and always ready to kill them when the opportunity arises. But right now, the cartels are causing the most harm to us.

We've been at war with Mexican drug cartels for decades. We just don't call it "war". And it's no big secret the USA alphabets attempt to control the cartels to some degree which no doubt includes working with them at some point.

a reply to: Scapegrace

That is a great synopses and a good point.
I too think that there is increased risk for the country and thwarting it will not be a cakewalk, by any means.

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

cannabis is traditionally not cut with anything

That is where you are wrong.
Very , very wrong.

From a child of the 60s and 70s

Please do elaborate on your on your extensive knowledge on this subject.

Other than scissors what's it cut the with.....

Thank you. The OP he responded to say's traditionally. I am sorry, but I have been smoking for about 20yrs now (and much more potent stuff than the boomers 60's and 70's weed) and have never cut it with anything. Nor have I seen it cut with anything.

Sure ya'll rolled laced spliffs, or jeffery's, but that is not traditional, and no one gen-x or younger is rolling spliffs on the regular.

The poster that thinks dope gets cut is clueless and that's why he didn't respond.

Interestingly enough, some pot around where I am is getting laced with meth, some pricks hoping to addict school kids which is a pretty sinister act.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

cannabis is traditionally not cut with anything

That is where you are wrong.
Very , very wrong.

From a child of the 60s and 70s

Please do elaborate on your on your extensive knowledge on this subject.

Other than scissors what's it cut the with.....

Thank you. The OP he responded to say's traditionally. I am sorry, but I have been smoking for about 20yrs now (and much more potent stuff than the boomers 60's and 70's weed) and have never cut it with anything. Nor have I seen it cut with anything.

Sure ya'll rolled laced spliffs, or jeffery's, but that is not traditional, and no one gen-x or younger is rolling spliffs on the regular.

Interestingly enough, some pot around where I am is getting laced with meth, some pricks hoping to addict school kids which is a pretty sinister act.

Why on earth would anyone feel the need to do that up there?

I mean, it's not exactly like theirs a shortage of loyal customers in NENSW.

originally posted by: neo96
There's only one way to deal with drug cartels.

Drones, and seal teams.

Send them all to their coc aine god.

Or legalize it and take away their billions and under ground economy which allows them to prosper

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I don't know, I just heard about it the other day, It could simply made up I have no way of qualifying it, a local teacher told me about it t h at works in the area where this supposedly happened.

Rewrite for the Sicario 3 script is underway. Pierre Delecto is said to have a cameo in the new script, as the conflict centers on the CIA once again infiltrating Mexico to slaughter cartel members by the dozens, this time ignited by kidnappings and armed conflicts with Mormon Polygamists.

Getting my popcorn ready. I'm sure they'll use some real time footage as the conflict unfolds on cable news and the big screen.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
I tend to disbelieve those kinds of stories, usually fear mongering, or taken out of context..personal use deals where someone was lacing their own.

But who knows.

a reply to: StallionDuck

The Mexican President doesn't want a war with the drug cartels because they gave him the Presidency when the drug cartels murdered every other Presidential candidate. This is what socialists and communist dictators do. They always stand for crime, corruption, and in favor of terrorists and drug cartels.

I have said this from the start, instead the Mexican President is still saying "hugs and not bullets for the drug cartels..."

I doubt Mexicans would even willingly vote for this President once more, which is why he needs the drug cartels to keep him in power.

If POTUS Trump attacks the compounds of drug cartels in Mexico, the Mexican President will probably recall their troops from the border, and will probably do more against the U.S.

But the POTUS is right, something has to be done. However, expect no help from the Mexican President, and instead expect for him to try to stop justice from being done.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
...
I challenge any such assertion. In fact, I think there may be a slight rise in the beginning, but that soon thereafter, there will actually be a decline in drug use, but in addition to that, a major reduction in crime associated with drugs and drug use over time, especially where children are concerned.

Challenge whatever you like. This is ironic since Deblasio just released thousands of criminals, including those whom have committed murder, as well as selling drugs to kids in school...

Meanwhile it might be true that there are some people in jail over their personal use of marijuana, which btw I am not in favor of it being legal and will get as to why later. But the large majority of those people in jail have been selling mj and other drugs to children, including in schools.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever to the claim that legalizing drugs like mj will reduce their use. Quite the contrary, just as i am pretty sure that more people these days have alcohol in their homes, or as a percentage of the total, more people drink alcohol now than when the democrats implemented prohibition.

Also, the claim that "legalizing mj will stop the cartels, and drug lords from selling such drugs as the drugs will be available to everyone", is false. First of all, to make such drugs legal they would have to be relatively safe, which means those drugs will be less "pure." All that the drug cartels have to do is keep selling drugs "purer" than what the law allows, and the drug cartels will continue having control over such drugs.

a reply to: vonclod

I'm not sure I believe it either, i just thought it worth mentioning due to the context of the conversation.

originally posted by: ChefFox
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I say the first volley in this war should be federally legalizing weed.

No you shouldn't.Legalizing weed makes things much worse. You would see a rapid of junkies on the streets without the police arresting them for doing so. Burn the weed fields.

Medical Marijuana hasnt helped my family member with her condition.

So you're basing your statement off one person you know?

Let me base mine off of what I have learned from living in a state that has legal recreational and medical weed.

Less people on the street - because they don't have to go out there to get it or hide it at home, it's legal
Less major crimes - cops don't have to waste their time arresting someone over a joint while someone else is getting robbed and possibly killed
Better quality - Rec and medical weed is tested in labs for potency and quality, no bunk weed with mold getting people sick
More Tax dollars - helps schools and the state itself to clean up the streets
Promotes tourism - even more money for the state
Non addictive - That's right, despite what you may think weed is not habit forming, unlike alcohol and nicotine which are both very legal.

I don't know where you live, but weed junkies don't roam the streets here, only heroin addicts and meth heads.

Now as far as people with conditions let me see....
My chronic migraines are more under control so this is first hand experience
My sister n law who is fighting cancer uses it to counter act her chemotherapy so thats a win
Friend of mine had major anxiety issues - solved
Another friend had severe insomnia issues to the point he would be lucky to sleep 10 hours total in a week - solved
Had a friend who could not eat anything because he has a condition that prevents him from getting hungry - solved


you get the idea. or maybe you don't. Either way, just because ONE family member of yours has tried it and it doesn't work doesn't mean it is a fail. Tylenol does nothing for me, only ibuprofen does, so does that mean we need to get rid of tylenol because it doesn't work for one person?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
I doubt Mexicans would even willingly vote for this President once more, which is why he needs the drug cartels to keep him in power.

Mexican presidents only get one term. So much for that theory.

First of all, to make such drugs legal they would have to be relatively safe, which means those drugs will be less "pure."

We have another summa cum laude DARE graduate.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
This is ironic since Deblasio just released thousands of criminals, including those whom have committed murder, as well as selling drugs to kids in school.

And this is relevant how? Are you seriously suggesting that I was suggesting that violent criminals or people peddling to children should be released, or not prosecuted?

Meanwhile it might be true that there are some people in jail over their personal use of marijuana, which btw I am not in favor of it being legal and will get as to why later. But the large majority of those people in jail have been selling mj and other drugs to children, including in schools.

Not true, and there are a lot more than 'some'.

Also, the costs involved would go down dramatically, both with the legal system, and more importantly, financially. Imagine instead of spending millions on 'fighting a never-ending war' on drugs, governments received many more millions in tax revenues, that could then be applied to education about the health risks, and treatment for those addicted but want help.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever to the claim that legalizing drugs like mj will reduce their use.

You are correct, but there is also virtually no data, especially long term, which is what I'm more concerned with.

Quite the contrary, just as i am pretty sure that more people these days have alcohol in their homes, or as a percentage of the total, more people drink alcohol now than when the democrats implemented prohibition.

Maybe, but at least there are no more Al Capones.

Also, the claim that "legalizing mj will stop the cartels, and drug lords from selling such drugs as the drugs will be available to everyone", is false.

Is it? The one real stat we have on this - Prohibition, and the rise of Al Capone/organized crime surrounding alcohol, says otherwise.

First of all, to make such drugs legal they would have to be relatively safe, which means those drugs will be less "pure." All that the drug cartels have to do is keep selling drugs "purer" than what the law allows, and the drug cartels will continue having control over such drugs.

No clue what you are trying to say here.

The bottom line, though, from my perspective, is the damage done to the entire concept of Liberty and Freedom when you start trying to regulate 'morality', which is all this is.

And again - there is simply no delegation of authority in the federal Constitution for the federal government to be involved in this question, whatsoever. It should absolutely be left to the States to decide.

Legalize it all, regulate and tax it, and leave adults alone, as long as they aren't hurting other people.

Legal weed is definitely a can of worms we need to open. The medicinal properties alone make it worth opening. The potential damage to big pharma is another. Would also deliver a severe blow to cancer as well. What pray tell is the reason you feel we should not open the can?

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I say the first volley in this war should be federally legalizing weed.

Hit the cartel where it hurts, in the pockets, and stimulate the domestic economy while increasing tax revenue.

Win, win, win.

Also, it wouldn't hurt is 2020 bid, he'd easily take a good section of the younger votes he's missing.

Weed to a cartel seems to me like a cheap toy to a child. They're also pushing much harder drugs like heroine and coc aine across our borders and making much more money from it, or so I would think. Can't legalize those, and I don't think legalizing weed is the answer either. Make the law more flexible regarding weed and stop there. It's another can of worms we don't need to open.