Sky News:Mexico Blames US Over Drug Crime And Murders

[Predicto]

Drones are the cure... but people get sued for the guys dog that like buttocks so i'm sure Drones are doomed.

Ok this is a Theibear post of rare quality.

WTF?

[Thiebear]

Ok this is a Theibear post of rare quality.

WTF?

Sorry I knew 'exactly' what i was thinking.

The rancher in arizona was sued by 16 illegals and was ordered to pay 70k.

One of the complaints was the statement they said he made about his dog liking to bite buttocks.

Therefore the Drones (of death) that would secure the border in a skynet like fashion would cure all our woes but alas, they would never get off the ground.

[PokerPacker]

solution: keep consuming as that will not stop, but put it through legal channels and out of the hands of murderous cartels.

[GoSkins561]

Sorry I knew 'exactly' what i was thinking.

The rancher in arizona was sued by 16 illegals and was ordered to pay 70k.

One of the complaints was the statement they said he made about his dog liking to bite buttocks.

Therefore the Drones (of death) that would secure the border in a skynet like fashion would cure all our woes but alas, they would never get off the ground.

You will probably hate this but....... that is a very MSF like thought, good idea though.

[PeterMP]

We are not without any ability to investigate such questions. For example, what has been the experience in other westernized countries that have decriminalized/legalized some drugs?

Great. First question, before legalization did they have severe issues with violent crime?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x0747tt8m913m464/

"Long term trends in violent crime in the Netherlands are analysed on the basis of crime rates, medical statistics and victim-surveys. After having pointed out problems of interpretation and the influence of theoretical presuppositions, the author concludes that from the middle of the 19th century until the 1970s the level of violent crime remained rather stable. In the interpretation of the recent rise of violent crime rates a distinction is made between instrumental and impulsive (affectional) violence."

The Dutch started changing their approach to soft drugs in the mid-1970's.

Violent crime rates WERE NOT the reason that the Netherlands adopted their drug policy, therefore the Dutch model tells you little to nothing about how adopting their drug laws will effect our violent crime rates (if anything, they tell you they won't change much as theirs didn't).

Is Norway an acceptable model to talk about gun laws w/ respect to the US?

I think we have three quarters of a century of data to work with already. And again, I think the same argument could be made (and was made) with regard to alcohol prohibition.

Well, as I already stated, prohibition is a poor model. The better question is what has changed today vs. the 40's, 50's and much of the 60's.

I think the increase in violent crime is associated with a permanent prision population where those in prision still have access to the outside world to run criminal enterprises. We've created a class of unpunishable people (w/o altering death penalty laws).

This also undermines the possiblity of prisions of acting as rehibilitation areas.

That population of people AREN'T in jail for marajuana related offenses.

We need to discuss the set-up of our prisions and the manner such people are handeled by our criminal justice system.

That is how you address the violent crime-drug issue.

[PeterMP]

I am not qualified to explain all of the reasons why violent crime has risen with regard to drugs, but I suspect it is precisely because law enforcement has cracked down ever harder over the years, which makes the prohibited drug ever more valuable on the black market, which raises the illegal profits that can be made from it, which raises the criminal interest in those profits and the willingness to use violence to get them. You didn't make a big profit on illegal drugs when the only users were broke hippies.

By the way, I'm sure I'm not reading this correctly, but it seems like you are saying that there is more violent crime associated with drugs because there is more money associated with it (which I agree with), but the money comes from law enforcement crack downs, which rises the prices.

That only makes sense if the drug dealers are buying their own drugs, but that doesn't even make sense because they can't pay themselves for their own drugs and make more money.

There is more money associated with drugs because drug use became more widespread.

[PeterMP]

Because, at the end of the day, you're using the word "should." I'm using the word "is." As in, no matter how you want to evaluate the guiding principles of American morals, the reality is that millions and millions and millions of people smoke pot, and nothing is going to change that.

Why not? Millions and millions of Americans didn't used to smoke pot (at least, I don't think so. If you can show me reliable statistics on pot use in the 30's, 40's, 50's, and the first part of the 60's, that shows otherwise I'll change my mind).

Millions of millions of people are employed by prisions and the associated industries. Why are those people the people that CAN change?

(NOT SHOULD)

[luckydevil]

When an establishment institution like the economist call for the legalization of drugs there may be some hope on the issue.

[Predicto]

By the way, I'm sure I'm not reading this correctly, but it seems like you are saying that there is more violent crime associated with drugs because there is more money associated with it (which I agree with), but the money comes from law enforcement crack downs, which rises the prices.

That only makes sense if the drug dealers are buying their own drugs, but that doesn't even make sense because they can't pay themselves for their own drugs and make more money.

The crackdowns make it dangerous and expensive to move drugs. The limitions on supply raise the price. Over time, the drugs can only be moved by successfully ever more sophisticated (and vicious) criminal organizations.

There is more money associated with drugs because drug use became more widespread.

Absolutely. Which makes it even sillier and ever more expensive and societally destructive to try to prohibit drug use using criminal law.

Another point - a second problem with prohibition is not only that it is expensive and creates a criminal underclass with massive amounts of cash to fight over, but it also makes the average citizen less respectful of the law overall.

I went to rich suburban McLean High School in the 1970s. Of the 50 people I knew best, at least 45 of them tried pot. And I was a nerd, on the Its Academic Team. I can't imagine what the fleabags percentage was. All of those people, in theory, could have gone to jail. The class president, the football captain, the drama chick - all of them. What kind of criminal law is that, one that almost all of your population has violated? It makes the law almost a random bad luck thing (or a vehicle for busting only the lower class). Its just stupid.

[Renegade7]

I don't want to start a huge fight, but whether you like the law or not it is the law PLUS you are fueling the people that are cutting off people's heads.

Shouldn't that combination of things be good incentive to not do it? Why does the "prison industrial complex" get the blame and not the stupid people breaking the law and helping to fuel the the people cutting off other people's heads?

I never said we should stop locking people up. What I said is that our attention should be more on stopping the drugs from getting into the country in the first place instead of focusing on the little people, wasting money and time hoping these "incentives" will change anything. There is more money being made maintaining the problem instead of solving it, and it's costing people lives.

You can lock up a million drug users, and a thousand drug dealers, but there will still be a thousand million more. And the majority of these hard drugs, (ie, cocaine, crack, herorin) are not made in this country. Instead of the people pushing the drugs into this country getting chased around, broke, uneducated Americans are taking the foot in the ass instead.

Trust me, it is real.

[Predicto]

Why not? Millions and millions of Americans didn't used to smoke pot (at least, I don't think so. If you can show me reliable statistics on pot use in the 30's, 40's, 50's, and the first part of the 60's, that shows otherwise I'll change my mind).

They didn't use to eat sushi or burritos either. So what? They do now. That's reality.

Millions of millions of people are employed by prisions and the associated industries. Why are those people the people that CAN change?

(NOT SHOULD)

Because they are an expense that we should not have to bear with our tax dollars, of course. You profess to hate wasteful government spending - spending on the drug war is incredibly large and wasteful.

[PeterMP]

Absolutely. Which makes it even sillier and ever more expensive and societally destructive to try to prohibit drug use using criminal law.

Another point - a second problem with prohibition is not only that it is expensive and creates a criminal underclass with massive amounts of cash to fight over, but it also makes the average citizen less respectful of the law overall.

I went to rich suburban McLean High School in the 1970s. Of the 50 people I knew best, at least 45 of them tried pot. And I was a nerd, on the Its Academic Team. I can't imagine what the fleabags percentage was. All of those people, in theory, could have gone to jail. The class president, the football captain, the drama chick - all of them. What kind of criminal law is that, one that almost all of your population has violated? It makes the law almost a random bad luck thing (or a vehicle for busting only the lower class). Its just stupid.

Child pornography is also rising. Is preventing child pornography via criminal laws silly and societally destructive?

Strictly speaking, use, possession, and selling are still illegal in the Netherlands. They just don't bother to enforce them.

In general, I agree though. I hate not enforcing laws. If the law is bad, change it.

Go back a page. That last post was sort of an add on to another post that ended up on the last page.

[Predicto]

I never said we should stop locking people up. What I said is that our attention should be more on stopping the drugs from getting into the country in the first place instead of focusing on the little people, wasting money and time hoping these "incentives" will change anything. There is more money being made maintaining the problem instead of solving it, and it's costing people lives.

You can lock up a million drug users, and a thousand drug dealers, but there will still be a thousand million more. And the majority of these hard drugs, (ie, cocaine, crack, herorin) are not made in this country. Instead of the people pushing the drugs into this country getting chased around, broke, uneducated Americans are taking the foot in the ass instead.

Um, isn't that why we have a collapsing narco-state on our borders?

If Mexico collapses into "Columbia North," get ready for a wave of illegal immigrants into the US the likes of which we have never seen.

[PeterMP]

They didn't use to eat sushi or burritos either. So what? They do now. That's reality.

Because they are an expense that we should not have to bear with our tax dollars, of course. You profess to hate wasteful government spending - spending on the drug war is incredibly large and wasteful.

None of this has anything to do with anybody's ability to change.

Your giving arguments for should.

(NOT SHOULD)

[Predicto]

Child pornography is also rising. Is preventing child pornography via criminal laws silly and societally destructive?

You win the nonsequitor prize. Child pornography has victims - the defenseless children abused in the pornography.

With drug prohibition, you are prohibiting a voluntary activity, just like alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.

Now if you can show me that drugs are manufactured by methods that abuse children, I'll buy the anlogy.

[Renegade7]

Um, isn't that why we have a collapsing narco-state on our borders?

If Mexico collapses into "Columbia North," get ready for a wave of illegal immigrants into the US the likes of which we have never seen.

Mexico is doing the right thing by doing everything in it's power to stop the cartels from taking over their country. Standing by and just watching it happen is not an option that should even be on the table. We need to do everything we can to help our ally and neighbor out, because the cartels aren't going to be satisfied unless NO ONE stands in their way.

With Mexico out the way, do you believe the cartels will give a damn about the DEA or you or me? Does anybody really believe it'll just stop there?

[ACW]

You win the nonsequitor prize. Child pornography has victims - the defenseless children abused in the pornography.

With drug prohibition, you are prohibiting a voluntary activity, just like alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.

Now if you can show me that drugs are manufactured by methods that abuse children, I'll buy the anlogy.

:yes:

[Predicto]

None of this has anything to do with anybody's ability to change.

Your giving arguments for should.

I guess I can't escape the idea that 75 years of ever-harsher criminal sanctions haven't seemed to work very well, not in lowering crime, not in fiscal responsibility, heck not even in reducing drug use (apparently).

:whoknows:

[PeterMP]

You win the nonsequitor prize. Child pornography has victims - the defenseless children abused in the pornography.

With drug prohibition, you are prohibiting a voluntary activity, just like alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.

Now if you can show me that drugs are manufactured by methods that abuse children, I'll buy the anlogy.

You don't think children are used as labor in other countries to produce drugs?

That those production methods aren't unsafe and unhealthy for children?

That that won't change even with legalization?

Does that not rise to the level of child abuse or does it only matter if they are American children?

**EDIT**

Again, go back a page.

[Predicto]

Mexico is doing the right thing by doing everything in it's power to stop the cartels from taking over their country. Standing by and just watching it happen is not an option that should even be on the table. We need to do everything we can to help our ally and neighbor out, because the cartels aren't going to be satisfied unless NO ONE stands in their way.

With Mexico out the way, do you believe the cartels will give a damn about the DEA or you or me? Does anybody really believe it'll just stop there?

Im not sure why you quoted me.

I care about Mexico and what happens there. I'm saying that if we decriminalized drugs, the mexican cartels would collapse from lack of demand.

[ACW]

You don't think children are used as labor in other countries to produce drugs?

That those production methods aren't unsafe and unhealthy for children?

That that won't change even with legalization?

Does that not rise to the level of child abuse or does it only matter if they are American children?

Wait, I thought everything was ok with them being illegal. Maybe legalization will help.

[Predicto]

You don't think children are used as labor in other countries to produce drugs?

That those production methods aren't unsafe and unhealthy for children?

That that won't change even with legalization?

Does that not rise to the level of child abuse or does it only matter if they are American children?

**EDIT**

Again, go back a page.

Oh please that is such weak sauce.

Is that why we also ban textile imports? And electronics? And agricultural products? Oh wait - we don't.

Connecting drug production to child abuse in this context is ludicrous.

[PeterMP]

Wait, I thought everything was ok with them being illegal. Maybe legalization will help.

I'll agree their is a problem

Come on this is one of your pet topics. You HAVE to be able to do better than that.

[PeterMP]

Oh please that is such weak sauce.

Is that why we also ban textile imports? And electronics? And agricultural products? Oh wait - we don't.

Connecting drug production to child abuse in this context is ludicrous.

I don't run the government.

I'll happily sign up for banning products from a good number of countries until they've shown they've changed- starting with China.

So abuse is okay as long as somebody else is practicing the same abuse?

[Renegade7]

Im not sure why you quoted me.

I care about Mexico and what happens there. I'm saying that if we decriminalized drugs, the mexican cartels would collapse from lack of demand.

Lack of demand? Have you ever known somebody who became a crackhead? Do you honestly believe a drug like that will have less the demand if you can pick it up in the supermarket for cheap with an mvp card? I'm not addressing anything you are talking about with anyone else except the parts you quoted concerning me.