Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the cartels have very little weight in the US drug market. different groups do.
you make it seem like cartels run the US, when they dont. such exageration!
Quote:
Originally Posted by clsicmovies
What I said was that it was cocaine which began widespread popularity in the early 80's, meaning an explosion. I didn't say all hard drugs began widespread popularity in early 80's, like for crystal meth it was a bit later on.
Exuse me, I meant to say drugs like cocaine come through (not from) Mexico exclusively.
No on CIA involvement with cartels, I was just agreeing with the person who wrote the CIA post on possible past government involvement with drug selling, that was supposed to be in America.
I didn't say I was an expert on classic movies, I just like some of them. Thank you for pointing out that most of marijuana is grown in U.S. now. all these drugs plus heroin are controlled by Mexican drug cartels in the U.S. of course.
And legalizing just marijuana will accomplish nothing because the cartels also produce tons of meth, and bring in heroin, crack cocaine, you'd have to make all drugs legal and make the government the biggest drug dealer there ever was.
Crime in the USA is actually down in many places. Legalizing all drugs in Mexico might be a good solution but it doesn't solve any of our problems.
What you say makes sense about legalizing just marijuana, cartels will up the selling of hard drugs, kidnappings and other crimes. Yes, would have to make all drugs legal but would it make less addicts. I'd like to take away law enforcement's extreme drug enabaling of letting drugs in jails, see our borders tightly controlled, and illegals deported.
the cartels have very little weight in the US drug market. different groups do.
you make it seem like cartels run the US, when they dont. such exageration!
Everywhere I read including the DEA site, state that it's the Mexican criminal drug cartels that are doing the selling of drugs in America from sources in Mexico and in the states.
And legalizing just marijuana will accomplish nothing because the cartels also produce tons of meth, and bring in heroin, crack cocaine, you'd have to make all drugs legal and make the government the biggest drug dealer there ever was.
Crime in the USA is actually down in many places. Legalizing all drugs in Mexico might be a good solution but it doesn't solve any of our problems.
Actually; legalizing marijuana may put a huge dent into the Meth trade..........most stoners are quite harmless-----------outside of eating up your food.
Actually; legalizing marijuana may put a huge dent into the Meth trade..........most stoners are quite harmless-----------outside of eating up your food.
I have a different theory. Back when a whole lot more people smoked cigarettes, there were far fewer drug problems. Mexico wasn't violent and there were laws against hard drugs then.
I think people who use drugs are self-medicating for some reason or another and maybe nicotine and cigarettes took care of whatever nerves needed calming or stimulant was needed.
At any rate though, it would make no sense for the government to persecute cigarette smokers the way it does, and at the same time provide meth, heroin, crack and all other kinds of drugs to the people.
Funny how the cocaine/crack explosion in the 80s increased at the same rate as the "Just Say No" rhetoric. Maybe it was to get people to not ask questions about what was really going on.
It was also the same time laws against cigarettes and that big government campaign against tobacco use started. Eliminate a fairly safe drug like nicotine, and the addictable types turn to something else.
Tobacco might not be great but it's time the government leave people alone on that, let people decide for themselves. I'd rather be on the highway with cigarette smokers than pot heads and ludeheads. I'd rather be in a hospital staffed by smokers than by crackheads and tweakers.
Wrong. WE have the violence. I don't know what your map looks like but on the one I have, Juarez is right across the border from El Paso, Texas which is in the United States of America. And since this was posted originally in a forum that centers around people crossing that border illegally, what makes you think that border is going to contain the violence? Or are you changing your position based on whatever point you're trying to make in a particular post? People do that sometimes.
I'm not talking about passing out drugs to middle schoolers. That's absurd. Lose the melodramatics and debate this rationally or I'm not going to waste my time with you. You might start with trying to explain to us how exactly drug prohibition has worked. As it is, middle schoolers can buy drugs without leaving school because the distribution system has been pushed to the underground, without any checks (ID, etc.) - when I was a kid it was easier to score pot than booze.
We do have violence but not nearly the kind of thing going on in Juarez. Most violence here is actually a result of that legalized alcohol -- legalizing it really didn't remove all violence associated with it. A lot of violence here is drug and alcohol related. You rarely see drug-free tea-totalers get in bar fights or rob liquor stores, and they beat their wives and abuse their children less.
At any rate though, it would make no sense for the government to persecute cigarette smokers the way it does, and at the same time provide meth, heroin, crack and all other kinds of drugs to the people.
Wait...we're not talking about handing out drugs to people. Legal or not, if people want them, they will get them, and they are. Are you really thinking that if it was legal that we're going to be doling them out to children at school or something?
Quote:
We do have violence but not nearly the kind of thing going on in Juarez.
Let me run this by you one more time: Juarez is right across the border from the United States. You expect that border will keep it from spilling over? How can you, when roughly a third of your 10K-plus posts on city-data are in the illegal immigration forum? If the illegals are getting over and the bad guys are getting over, do you honestly think it will never affect us? Let me guess - you live nowhere even somewhat close to the Mexican border. Because here in Texas, we know all too well just how close this mess is getting. It was different when this was going on in Colombia, but now that it's on our doorstep, suddenly people are talking turkey about changing our approach to drug policy.
Anyway, here's some food for thought on the effects of alcohol prohibition on actual alcohol use. Do you suppose that legalizing any other drug will have an opposite effect (i.e. use will increase)? If so, why? Can you provide any evidence other than "well, I think it will, so it will?"
Uhuh. And if the US was not flooded with cheap, readily available drugs by Mexican drug cartels, maybe we would have fewer drug users.
My theory behind why the US Government makes certain drugs illegal has to do more with wealth-redistribution from trading (importing) and less with general "All American Values." I'll single out one particular illegal drug grown in South America to prove my point.
If Cocaine use were legal in the United States it would represent the largest wealth transfer from North American consumers to South American farmers ever! The United States would run significantly large trading deficit with certain South American Countries. This deficit would most likely grow exponentially year after year.
Cocaine is the number #2 drug of choice in America by leaps and bounds (I'm certain most statistics back this up). Pot would obviously be number one, but it can/is grown domestically in states like California, Kentucky, and etc, so the government would most likely legalize and tax this drug first. However, Americans consume large amounts of illegal cocaine each year grown and exported from foreign countries in South America. Cocaine is a product that currently cannot be grown domestically in the United States. If we were able to grow cocaine domestically and the roles were completely reversed, i highly doubt, it would be an illegal crop for US farmers to grow and export.
If this particular drug were ever legalized, the trade deficits between the United States and certain South American countries would be fairly large year in and year out. Each year we would transfer significantly more wealth to these countries if "cocaine" were legalized. In an attempt to limit wealth-redistribution to South American Farmers we ban their most profitable crop.
Just my theory as to why cocaine is illegal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
