Poll: Is a "war" against Mexican Cartels inevitable?

[DeToxRox]

Just reading more and more about how fubar Mexico is right now, with the last gem being the million dollar bounty placed on a Mexican Sheriff's head, it is seeming inevitable that the US is going to end up intervening down there. The Mexican Government is not going to be able to handle the situation, and it's only going to continue to escalate.

I think it is becoming inevitable that American's will die there as a direct result of the Cartel Wars and lead to the US using some military action in Mexico.

So are we going to go Jack Ryan on their ass?

[molson]

Not our problem until it really spills across the border.

And chaos in Mexico only increases our access to cheap, illegal labor!

[DeToxRox]

Not our problem until it really spills across the border.

And chaos in Mexico only increases our access to cheap, illegal labor!

Well played.

I do think that is a good point though. The Cartels are (most likely) not going to be dumb enough to attack American's on US soil, but the wars are creeping over the borders and all it takes is one attack to go awry before shit hits the fan.

[lungs]

Should've let all that business stay in Colombia. Now it's moved right to our door step.

[panerd]

If you are asking if US troops will ever go there then I would say that depends on when the public has enough with the Middle East and then the bloated military industrial complex will have to find somewhere else to go. (North Korea maybe?) If you are just talking covert US/DEA/CIA military action than I would be willing to lay a lot of my money that this has already been going on for years. Got to do American's parenting for them to keep the evil drugs away from the children! What about the children!

[Kodos]

We should legalize drugs, produce them in the U.S., and tax the hell out of them.

[molson]

Should've let all that business stay in Colombia. Now it's moved right to our door step.

It's hard to justify waging war on another country's criminals though. Do we really need American prosecutors added to the bounty list?

It will get interesting though, if they really try to setup shop on our side of the border. That's a physical invasion, any way you look at it. Which opens up all kinds of interesting possibilites, including for state militias.

[lungs]

It's hard to justify waging war on another country's criminals though. Do we really need American prosecutors added to the bounty list?

It will get interesting though, if they really try to setup shop on our side of the border. That's a physical invasion, any way you look at it. Which opens up all kinds of interesting possibilites, including for state militias.

Exactly why our efforts in the 1990s in Colombia have essentially moved the cocaine trade right to our doorstep where the cartels have easier access to our prosecutors and others that wouldn't be happy about interdiction efforts.

[panerd]

We should legalize drugs, produce them in the U.S., and tax the hell out of them.

A survey of high school and middle school kids found that a larger percentage of them know where to buy marijuana than alcohol. Regulate it and then let adults do whatever the hell they want. I know I sound like a broken record sometimes but a lot of these progressive ideals aren't that bad in theory. I don't want prostitutes on my street, don't want drugs in my kid's schools, don't want people going broke from gambling. Problem is... they doesn't work. Good parenting works, government can't do parenting for the bad ones.

[Sun Tzu]

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

~Abraham Lincoln

[Swaggs]

Good parenting works, government can't do parenting for the bad ones.

This is a black and white approach to a shades of grey-type of problem.

[Autumn]

I think given the geopolitical and security concerns of having a collapsing state right on our border, it's a given that we will take action if things continue to deteriorate. I'm sure like most military involvements it will be couched in different terms than that. But one of the reasons we have been the world power we have is that we don't have security concerns on our doorstep. Mexico remaining stable is a huge necessity for our security, whatever its impact on us otherwise.

[AENeuman]

it's confusing when the poll options are in half spanish and half english...

[Greyroofoo]

A survey of high school and middle school kids found that a larger percentage of them know where to buy marijuana than alcohol. Regulate it and then let adults do whatever the hell they want. I know I sound like a broken record sometimes but a lot of these progressive ideals aren't that bad in theory. I don't want prostitutes on my street, don't want drugs in my kid's schools, don't want people going broke from gambling. Problem is... they doesn't work. Good parenting works, government can't do parenting for the bad ones.

So what do you do for the kids with bad parents?

[lungs]

So what do you do for the kids with bad parents?

Sterilize them.

[JediKooter]

No trout option?

[RainMaker]

A survey of high school and middle school kids found that a larger percentage of them know where to buy marijuana than alcohol. Regulate it and then let adults do whatever the hell they want. I know I sound like a broken record sometimes but a lot of these progressive ideals aren't that bad in theory. I don't want prostitutes on my street, don't want drugs in my kid's schools, don't want people going broke from gambling. Problem is... they doesn't work. Good parenting works, government can't do parenting for the bad ones.
That's the crazy thing about making illegal. It's ridiculously easy to get. It sort of is legal in a way when you can buy it as easily as any other good. We just choose to waste resources policing something that can't be policed.

[Axxon]

Just reading more and more about how fubar Mexico is right now, with the last gem being the million dollar bounty placed on a Mexican Sheriff's head, it is seeming inevitable that the US is going to end up intervening down there.

It's not a Mexican Sheriff.

There are reports out of Arizona that the Juarez cartel is offering one million dollars for execution of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Arpaio, as you know is the often called the toughest Sheriff in the country.

According to various reports, the bounty was offered via text message that went out over the weekend in Phoenix.

Officials with the Sheriff's Department in Maricopa County tells the NBC station in Phoenix that they do not know for sure whether the threat is really from the Juarez cartel but they do know that it was made from a cell phone in Mexico.


hxxp://www.ktsm.com/arizona-sheriff-targeted-by-the-juarez-cartel

[molson]

All the violence is somewhat of a decent sign in the sense that these cartels are really being challenged, both by the Mexican government and each other.

A worse scenerio might be just a couple of cartels peacefully controlling everything, including the government, unchallenged. Or actually, maybe that would be better. I have no idea. Why did you ask me?

[JPhillips]

Given Arpaio's history, I'm going to be skeptical until I see some evidence.

[Axxon]

Also, the irony is that Arpaio's "tough" on illegals policing has led to an increase in his crime rate while the areas around him have had crime drop. Shockingly, when you're more worried about every Jose that has snuck across the border than actual criminals committing crimes that effect other people, things don't go that great.


What crimes effect other people? I know of several which affect other people but none off the top of my head that have the effect of effecting other people except maybe rape in places where abortion is strictly not allowed. Then you could effect another person. Is this what you had in mind? I didn't realize that rape statistics were that bad in Phoenix but they could be I guess.

[EagleFan]

So how much is the bounty...

[Greyroofoo]

Maybe I was being vague, but I meant that illegal immigration while a crime doesn't directly effect someone else like a rape, robbery, murder, etc, etc. Like I said, crime in the urban areas around Apario's little domain have gone down while they've gone up in Apraio's jurisdiction despite the fact that the illegal immigration populations as a percentage are about the same in both places.

Links by any chance?

[stevew]

So how much is the bounty...

and is it a quicker picker upper

[Noop]

Might as well annex Mexico and lay waste to the Cartels.

[molson]

Adam Serwer Archive | The American Prospect (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=07&year=2010&base_name=violent_crime_up_under_sheriff)

Via (http://washingtonindependent.com/91520/violent-crime-is-down-in-arizona-up-in-sheriff-joe-arpaios-county) Elise Foley comes another myth-busting graph from the pro-immigration group America's Voice Online, which shows that crime has gone up drastically in Maricopa County while dropping in the rest of Arizona despite (because of?) the draconian (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/07/20/090720fa_fact_finnegan) anti-immigrant policies of its conservative celebrity sheriff, Joe Arpaio:

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/adam_serwer/AmericasVoiceCrimeGraph.jpg

Jack Harris, the police chief in Phoenix, where crime has gone down 14 percent since 2002, wrote a declaration supporting the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona over SB 1070 saying, "deterring, investigating, and solving serious and violent crimes and it would be impossible to do our job without the collaboration and support of community members, even though they may be in the country unlawfully."

How can crime be way up in a county but way down in the four biggest cities in that county? That seems like some kind of administrative/jurisdictional change rather than a meaningful trend.

Edit: As best as I can tell with quick research the county sheriff's jurisdiction covers mostly unincorporated land in the county. They also handle some corrections/prisoner handling stuff. Probably not worthy of the attention the loudmouth Sheriff gets. But I'm not sure how his views on illegal immigration are increasing crime in unincorporated areas (except that he's probably more aggressive than the city police departments, which will mean higher "crime rates", or as they can be more realistically described, "rate of crimes reported").

[panerd]

This is a black and white approach to a shades of grey-type of problem.

You're right. And The Wire (I do realize it is fiction but damn close to reality in every area I have some personal experience with) shows that the police treat it like a black and white problem as well. Season 4: Incredible truth on the good and the bad of legalization but also the complete hypocrisy of whatever the hell is going on right now. The US/DEA policy on drugs is about as black and white as you can get. What are we at now for our drug related prison populations 50%+?

<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F2fV-_eiKxE"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F2fV-_eiKxE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

[molson]

Or more likely, when you're focusing on catching Jose with "immigration checkpoints" and such, you don't have enough officers looking for Bobby raping somebody or Charlie robbing a liquor store.

Odd choice of names to try to make your point.

The County Sheriff's entire jurisdiction appears to consist of a few thousand people and a whole lot of desert. I can see why they're so obsessed with illegal immigrants, because there isn't much else for them to do.

And they run the county jails and "tent cities." Which they don't appear to be very good at.

[Dutch]

Good enough for me not to want to go.

So let's frame the graphic.

Should we say...

"Crime is way up in Arpaio's county"

or is it...

"No dent on holding people accountable anywhere but in Arpaio's county"?

I don't know if the report is saying that there is actually more crime or more reports and arrests. I'm not sure.

[Poli]

I'm fairly certain Detox needs to do the right thing here. This thread might be the first thread he's ever created where the title needs edited.

Poll: POLL:

Really?

[miked]

Odd choice of names to try to make your point.

The County Sheriff's entire jurisdiction appears to consist of a few thousand people and a whole lot of desert. I can see why they're so obsessed with illegal immigrants, because there isn't much else for them to do.

And they run the county jails and "tent cities." Which they don't appear to be very good at.

It probably also helps the crime rate that he allegedly trumps up charges and investigations against his political opponents only to get no convictions after bankrupting them and winning the election.

[DeToxRox]

I'm fairly certain Detox needs to do the right thing here. This thread might be the first thread he's ever created where the title needs edited.

Poll: POLL:

Really?

How dare you? .. But ok.

[lungs]

This is getting to be pretty crazy down there. 72 migrants were kidnapped and executed by one of the cartels. Mayors are being assassinated with the help of police. In Cuernavaca, a city I visited 6 years ago (and one of the most tranquil places I visited in Mexico) they found four beheaded people hanging from a bridge.

Honestly, what Mexico needs is a full blown revolution and a guy like Fidel Castro to take charge. Not necessarily a Communist, but a guy that will clean up a mess. When Castro took over Cuba it was run by the mafia and when the mafia tried to pay off Castro he had them taken to the wall and shot.

Mexico needs a strongman to break the culture of corruption in the police force. Take all the crooked cops to the wall and shoot them. Mass purges.

Sure, we can take steps here to limit the demand for the cartels but the corruption of Mexico is deeply ingrained and they need to get brutal to weed it out.

[Noop]

This is getting to be pretty crazy down there. 72 migrants were kidnapped and executed by one of the cartels. Mayors are being assassinated with the help of police. In Cuernavaca, a city I visited 6 years ago (and one of the most tranquil places I visited in Mexico) they found four beheaded people hanging from a bridge.

Honestly, what Mexico needs is a full blown revolution and a guy like Fidel Castro to take charge. Not necessarily a Communist, but a guy that will clean up a mess. When Castro took over Cuba it was run by the mafia and when the mafia tried to pay off Castro he had them taken to the wall and shot.

Mexico needs a strongman to break the culture of corruption in the police force. Take all the crooked cops to the wall and shoot them. Mass purges.

Sure, we can take steps here to limit the demand for the cartels but the corruption of Mexico is deeply ingrained and they need to get brutal to weed it out.

I'm all for meeting their brutal violent with a few ICBMs, torture and sodomy from the harden few.

[molson]

I'm all for meeting their brutal violent with a few ICBMs, torture and sodomy from the harden few.

I kind of get the ICBMs and torture - but the sodomy seems like a bit of overkill.

[Noop]

I kind of get the ICBMs and torture - but the sodomy seems like a bit of overkill.

I don't know about you but if someone is threatening to butt rape me I would stop doing whatever it is I am doing. For the few who are able to maintain resolve through torture and ICBMs the butt rape is for them.

[Galaxy]

This is getting to be pretty crazy down there. 72 migrants were kidnapped and executed by one of the cartels. Mayors are being assassinated with the help of police. In Cuernavaca, a city I visited 6 years ago (and one of the most tranquil places I visited in Mexico) they found four beheaded people hanging from a bridge.

Honestly, what Mexico needs is a full blown revolution and a guy like Fidel Castro to take charge. Not necessarily a Communist, but a guy that will clean up a mess. When Castro took over Cuba it was run by the mafia and when the mafia tried to pay off Castro he had them taken to the wall and shot.

Mexico needs a strongman to break the culture of corruption in the police force. Take all the crooked cops to the wall and shoot them. Mass purges.

Sure, we can take steps here to limit the demand for the cartels but the corruption of Mexico is deeply ingrained and they need to get brutal to weed it out.

The cartels are pretty brutal, well-organized, and are very large in numbers.
They are throwing dead bodies into caustic acid. They make Islamic terrorists look like pee-wee football players in their actions and organization.

I personally think we will have to send in our military at some point.

[Dutch]

Honestly, what Mexico needs is a full blown revolution and a guy like Fidel Castro to take charge. Not necessarily a Communist, but a guy that will clean up a mess. When Castro took over Cuba it was run by the mafia and when the mafia tried to pay off Castro he had them taken to the wall and shot.

I thought Castro put all the criminals on boats and sent them to Miami?

[lungs]

I thought Castro put all the criminals on boats and sent them to Miami?

Wasn't that in the late 70s or early 80s? I'm talking about 1959-1960 when he just took power.

[panerd]

The cartels are pretty brutal, well-organized, and are very large in numbers.
They are throwing dead bodies into caustic acid. They make Islamic terrorists look like pee-wee football players in their actions and organization.

I personally think we will have to send in our military at some point.

Or we could change our drug laws. I think people will look back at the war on drugs at some point in the future much like we look at the Salem witch hunts, Al Capone, the crusades, the Red Scare, ... It really is quite silly. Write a million laws if you want about driving under the influence, providing drugs to minors, operating machinery under the influence, but make it legal for an adult to smoke a plant. Or let thousands of more Mexicans and South Americans die and then bring in the US military to solve the problem. That plan hasn't really ever backfired in the past 40 years.

[RomaGoth]

I may be in the minority here, but why don't we just build a wall and police it? Blah blah blah expensive blah blah blah. With the millions of dollars our government has pissed away over the years, we could have built several walls hundreds of feet thick to keep out all the nonsense. A wall would eliminate much of the need to send our military to yet another country that essentially is not our problem in the first place.

[sterlingice]

Millions of dollars for a wall that's over 1000 miles long? Try again.

(Well, unless you're using illeg-- er... undocumented labor ;) )

SI

[molson]

I may be in the minority here, but why don't we just build a wall and police it? Blah blah blah expensive blah blah blah. With the millions of dollars our government has pissed away over the years, we could have built several walls hundreds of feet thick to keep out all the nonsense. A wall would eliminate much of the need to send our military to yet another country that essentially is not our problem in the first place.

I think that's considered racist (not just the wall part, which may or may not be practical, but enforcement of immigration laws generally).

[RomaGoth]

Millions of dollars for a wall that's over 1000 miles long? Try again.

(Well, unless you're using illeg-- er... undocumented labor ;) )

SI

We have spent billions on stupid shit that has meant nothing, why not finally spend it on something that matters?

[sterlingice]

I dunno- I've heard estimates in the $100B-$200B range with probably another $10-$20B per year to man it and that doesn't keep out people who travel across the border by car. If it's 99% efficient for $100B/$10B, that's different than 50% and $200B/$20B.

There's a legitimate debate to have there but I don't have all the facts.

SI

[Dutch]

Wasn't that in the late 70s or early 80s? I'm talking about 1959-1960 when he just took power.

Check your history. That's impossible. There is no way Tony Montana was on the same island with Fidel Castro for 20 years...and nothing was done about it.

[RomaGoth]

There's a legitimate debate to have there but I don't have all the facts.

SI

Nor do I. :)

[Autumn]

I may be in the minority here, but why don't we just build a wall and police it? Blah blah blah expensive blah blah blah. With the millions of dollars our government has pissed away over the years, we could have built several walls hundreds of feet thick to keep out all the nonsense. A wall would eliminate much of the need to send our military to yet another country that essentially is not our problem in the first place.

But there's the rub. Mexico quite certainly is our problem in the first place. Our two countries are deeply interconnected and always will be by simple geopolitics and economics. You'll notice that the Great Wall of China has not been a widely adopted solution to these sort of issues for a reason.

[BishopMVP]

We have spent billions on stupid shit that has meant nothing, why not finally spend it on something that matters?Grouping these two issues (Mexican Cartels/Drugs ; Illegal Immigration) is pretty stupid imo. On the one hand 99% of people coming over the border have nothing to do with drugs or cartels, and on the other hand building some massive fence won't stop the drugs from coming in - if anything it will only up the profits. As long as the potential revenue is as high as it is, prosecuting it harder and driving it further underground will only lead to it being controlled by more and more ruthless people. Legalizing at least marijuana is pretty much a necessity at some point, it's just a matter of how much money we want to waste prosecuting it before the fiscal reality outweighs the moral outrage.

[RomaGoth]

But there's the rub. Mexico quite certainly is our problem in the first place. Our two countries are deeply interconnected and always will be by simple geopolitics and economics. You'll notice that the Great Wall of China has not been a widely adopted solution to these sort of issues for a reason.

I am not sure how Mexico is our problem, when we clearly are unable to take care of things within our own borders with any kind of consistency. The border with Mexico is our problem, but the country of Mexico is not. The Great Wall of China was created for different reasons in a different age, but I would venture that if we had a wall of that build at our borders, we would have far fewer problems with immigration and such than we do now.

[RomaGoth]

Grouping these two issues (Mexican Cartels/Drugs ; Illegal Immigration) is pretty stupid imo. On the one hand 99% of people coming over the border have nothing to do with drugs or cartels, and on the other hand building some massive fence won't stop the drugs from coming in - if anything it will only up the profits. As long as the potential revenue is as high as it is, prosecuting it harder and driving it further underground will only lead to it being controlled by more and more ruthless people. Legalizing at least marijuana is pretty much a necessity at some point, it's just a matter of how much money we want to waste prosecuting it before the fiscal reality outweighs the moral outrage.

Links or other info to back this up? I would bet it is far less than 99%. I have always loved the "legalize Marijuana" argument as I am sure that will solve all of our problems with a bunch of stoners running around smoking pot in public places, but I digress.

[panerd]

I have always loved the "legalize Marijuana" argument as I am sure that will solve all of our problems with a bunch of stoners running around smoking pot in public places, but I digress.

I hope you don't bring that to the debate. Dumbest post I have read all day. You're right the United States current drug laws are holding all the "stoners" back from smoking marijuana. More laws! Giant wall! We can control people's behavior!

[McSweeny]

I have always loved the "legalize Marijuana" argument as I am sure that will solve all of our problems with a bunch of stoners running around smoking pot in public places, but I digress.

I assume you also want to make alcohol illegal so you won't have a bunch of drunks running around drinking in public places.

[cartman]

Check your history. That's impossible. There is no way Tony Montana was on the same island with Fidel Castro for 20 years...and nothing was done about it.

Well, duh. The oppressive communist regime only served to keep his violent tendencies in check. It wasn't until he came to the free-market paradise of the USA was he able to fully realize his potential.

[Dutch]

Well, duh. The oppressive communist regime only served to keep his violent tendencies in check. It wasn't until he came to the free-market paradise of the USA was he able to fully realize his potential.

Same goes for doctors and rocket scientists. :)

[RomaGoth]

I hope you don't bring that to the debate. Dumbest post I have read all day. You're right the United States current drug laws are holding all the "stoners" back from smoking marijuana. More laws! Giant wall! We can control people's behavior!

Never said the laws were holding them back, but at least it keeps them from smoking it wherever, whenever, and selling that shit to my kids. I am smart enough to understand that people will do it regardless of the law, and that they will still sell it to kids at school, blah blah, but c'mon. I just find the argument of legalizing drugs to be rather old and pointless.

But you go ahead and flame me, I have heard worse. ;)

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Never said the laws were holding them back, but at least it keeps them from smoking it wherever, whenever, and selling that shit to my kids.

Speaking of pointless and old arguments, you do realize that you cannot drink wherever, whenever, and sell alcohol to children, right?

[molson]

Speaking of pointless and old arguments, you do realize that you cannot drink wherever, whenever, and sell alcohol to children, right?

Shit, there goes my weekend.

[RomaGoth]

Speaking of pointless and old arguments, you do realize that you cannot drink wherever, whenever, and sell alcohol to children, right?

True. However, until the last several years, you COULD light up a cigarette damn near anywhere, and non-smokers were forced to either put up with it or leave the immediate area. I have heard more comparisons between smoking cigarettes and smoking pot than anything involving drinking alcohol.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

That makes a lot of sense. You must be listening to the wrong comparison makers.

[RomaGoth]

That makes a lot of sense. You must be listening to the wrong comparison makers.

Actually it does make a lot of sense. When was the last time you got second hand anything from someone drinking alcohol, unless they threw up on you?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

You're talking about second hand effects. I really don't believe marijuana legalization would allow for smoking in public so I don't think those arguments really mean much. I think alcohol is a lot closer as a regulated intoxicant. It is regulated where and when you can drink it, much like pot would be.

[RomaGoth]

You're talking about second hand effects. I really don't believe marijuana legalization would allow for smoking in public so I don't think those arguments really mean much. I think alcohol is a lot closer as a regulated intoxicant. It is regulated where and when you can drink it, much like pot would be.

I understand the point you are making, but how would any type of legislation really be capable of monitoring whether people are smoking it in public or not? Without the different odor, many people would not know the difference between marijuana and a regular cigarette.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

And without the fact that alcohol is not soda, many people would not know the difference between the two.

[RomaGoth]

And without the fact that alcohol is not soda, many people would not know the difference between the two.

Ummm....ok.

[JPhillips]

I understand the point you are making, but how would any type of legislation really be capable of monitoring whether people are smoking it in public or not? Without the different odor, many people would not know the difference between marijuana and a regular cigarette.

Wouldn't that be a rational for a lot of public pot smoking while it's illegal? If people can't tell the difference between a legal product and an illegal product why isn't your scenario happening now?

[RomaGoth]

If people can't tell the difference between a legal product and an illegal product why isn't your scenario happening now?

Laws.

[molson]

What I want to know is, if legalizing marijuana would end Mexican drug cartel violence (which seems like a pretty big deal) - why the hell doesn't the current leftish administration/congress go anywhere near this issue?

[BishopMVP]

Links or other info to back this up? I would bet it is far less than 99%. I have always loved the "legalize Marijuana" argument as I am sure that will solve all of our problems with a bunch of stoners running around smoking pot in public places, but I digress.No, I don't have any links to scientifically valid surveys done on people as they were illegally crossing the border asking them the purpose of their visit and whether they planned to commit any felonies while in the US.

As for marijuana, based on your inference that the first thing "stoners" will start to do is run around it's pretty obvious you've never smoked or known when you've been around anyone who has. Now, I don't smoke, mostly for the Daniel Tosh rationale - because I'm 25 and I have shit to do, but some quick bullet points
- Legalizing marijuana isn't some moral crusade I'm on (although I do think the War on Drugs has been eroding our liberty and used as cover to pass some real police state laws), it's a fiscal necessity imo. Between the amount spent prosecuting and jailing people, and the taxes that could be reaped it's in the hundreds of billions.
- It's easier, and always has been in my experience, for a HS student to buy marijuana than alcohol. Part of this is the medium of transport - it's easier to carry and hide a small ziploc bag than a 30 rack, but part is also that it's being sold by on the black market with no difference in punishment between selling to a 21 y/o or an 18 y/o.
- You mention secondhand smoke and ask the last time anyone was affected by secondhand anything from alcohol. Do increased violence, decreased inhibition (leading to things like promiscuity and public lewdness), or drunk driving count?
- The fact that you admit the only noticeable difference between marijuana and tobacco and their respective users is the smell should tip you off that maybe it's not that bad. Drunk people are aggressive and make dumb(er) decisions, people on acid literally can't comprehend the world around them, people on crack or meth are so addicted to their next hit they base their entire lives around it and abuse those around them. Stoners? They have really dumb conversations, keep trying to change the channel to the Cartoon Network, and eat all the snack food in the house - it's not the end of the world.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I hate to sound like panerd, but really its practically the Bipartisan Party at this point. Find little cultural reasons to make everyone look different, but keep the status quo moving ahead.

FWIW I really doubt legalizing marijuana would end the violence.

[lungs]

What I want to know is, if legalizing marijuana would end Mexican drug cartel violence (which seems like a pretty big deal) - why the hell doesn't the current leftish administration/congress go anywhere near this issue?

Because most good pot is grown on the West Coast or in Kentucky or a local indoor grower.

Most of the cartel money is for transporting cocaine through Mexico via South America.

[lungs]

dola... forgot human trafficking too.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Ummm....ok.

Booze in a solo cup vs. soda in a solo cup is pretty much equal to a cigarette vs. a joint, except that you could actually tell the cigarette from the joint if you were anywhere in the area.

[JPhillips]

Laws.

Laws that would still be in place. No one is suggesting legalizing public consumption of pot.

[molson]

Because most good pot is grown on the West Coast or in Kentucky or a local indoor grower.

Most of the cartel money is for transporting cocaine through Mexico via South America.

Makes sense.

So marijuana is irrelevant to this, really. Does anyone want to legalize cocaine?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

So marijuana is irrelevant to this, really.

Lots of pot still comes from Mexico. Legalization would hurt them, but they've still got plenty of other types of drugs to send up here.

Cash From Marijuana Fuels Mexico's Drug War : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126978142)

And I'll bite, what's the argument against legalizing cocaine? Of course, the state can't be there to pick you up if you decide to trash your own life away.

[molson]

Lots of pot still comes from Mexico. Legalization would hurt them, but they've still got plenty of other types of drugs to send up here.

Cash From Marijuana Fuels Mexico's Drug War : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126978142)

And I'll bite, what's the argument against legalizing cocaine? Of course, the state can't be there to pick you up if you decide to trash your own life away.

I don't know what the argument is.

I tend to think everything should be legal, but feel I'm obviously missing something, because nobody in power ever has anything close to this view.

[lungs]

Makes sense.

So marijuana is irrelevant to this, really. Does anyone want to legalize cocaine?

Well, Mexico does export plenty of marijuana here, but I'm not sure how involved the cartels are in pot. Marijuana is bulky to smuggle compared to cocaine and the money involved is not as lucrative. I wouldn't say marijuana is irrelevant but it does pale compared to cocaine and human smuggling for the cartels.

I'm usually pro-legalization when it comes to drugs but I honestly struggle with the harder drugs like cocaine and heroin. My probable solution would be for harder drugs to remain illegal but instead of locking up offenders we use rehabilitation. I can't see the production/distribution of hard drugs leaving the black market. Which doesn't solve our problem with the cartels.

[molson]

My probable solution would be for harder drugs to remain illegal but instead of locking up offenders we use rehabilitation.

We definitely use rehabilitation, but recovery is hard enough as it is, I'm pretty sure the success rate is 0% if you order someone into it. It just doesn't work. They'll do whatever they have to do avoid prison, and use again the second they can.

Edit: People like to quote the number of people in jails and prisons on drug related charges, but a lot of those people are only there because they were given a chance at probation/rehabilitation, but bombed. What other incentive can the criminal justice system offer to stay clean? One way is to basically say, "do what you want, but if it impacts other people we're REALLY coming down on you." - such as life sentences for DUIs, or drug-related domestic violence, etc. Not sure that would fly either though. And then people would ask - "how could the justice system let it get to this point!!!" (when a drug addict wipes out a family on the highway).

[lungs]

Lots of pot still comes from Mexico. Legalization would hurt them, but they've still got plenty of other types of drugs to send up here.

Cash From Marijuana Fuels Mexico's Drug War : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126978142)

And I'll bite, what's the argument against legalizing cocaine? Of course, the state can't be there to pick you up if you decide to trash your own life away.


And that article slaps my argument in the face :)

It does make some sense that marijuana would be lucrative to the cartels but the problem is that they have competition here in the USA in production. Knowing from firsthand experience, Mexican weed is shit :)

[lungs]

We definitely use rehabilitation, but recovery is hard enough as it is, I'm pretty sure the success rate is 0% if you order someone into it. It just doesn't work. They'll do whatever they have to do avoid prison, and use again the second they can.

I agree the success rate is low. Treating addiction isn't easy. Not sure I have the answers but maybe we should look at the Portuguese model. (http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/is-portugals-liberal-drug-policy-a-model-for-us/19591395)

[BishopMVP]

What I want to know is, if legalizing marijuana would end Mexican drug cartel violence (which seems like a pretty big deal) - why the hell doesn't the current leftish administration/congress go anywhere near this issue?For the record, I don't think legalizing marijuana will end cartel violence - although not irrelevant since I do think it will limit the amount of money some significant amount (25-30% as a wild guess?). Would I legalize a drug like cocaine that is chemically addictive, let alone ones farther than that? I don't know, but it's not even really worth thinking about unless the marijuana step occurs. Back to cartel violence, I don't even think legalizing every drug would end it - at a certain point you have very bad people with money and guns whose only talents are their willingness and ability to threaten violence - you can try to starve the beast by limiting it's income, but they'll find a place to channel those talents. Even severely limiting corruption would be a huge step, but we still have a gang problem in every urban area in the US. Colombia is the success story, but despite all the violence, all the expense, and all the effort, a large part of it was only achieved by pushing it into other countries - the growing into Peru and Bolivia, the transport and violence to Mexican cartels.

As for the political question, do you really have to ask? I hate the stoners that spend all day talking about why we have to legalize it, but it's pretty evident to anyone that's been around the two that alcohol is much more dangerous and destructive, yet it's illegal - probably because it was enjoyed by white people while marijuana was perceived as a black and Mexican drug - and 70+ years of propaganda have only increased the instinctive distrust by the part of the American populace that hasn't smoked or realized when they've been around people who have. In that sense, Romagoth is the one in line with the average voter, and considering the razor-thin margins elections are won on, backing down on the war on drugs would be death knell for a party for at least 1, maybe 2 presidential cycles.

[molson]

Because the current administration is nowhere as near left as you believe and unfortunately, most politicians are still stuck in 1977 when it comes to drugs?

The hypothetical fix for everything is just to keep moving left. But we must have to go REALLY far left to get anywhere on drugs, because I can't think of ANY candidates for public office campaigning for the legalization of everything. It's definitely easy to always be right when every proposed solution is a hypothetical impossibility.

[stevew]

We need more purple drank

[tarcone]

Isnt legalization of Marijuana on the November ballot in California?

[Autumn]

I am not sure how Mexico is our problem, when we clearly are unable to take care of things within our own borders with any kind of consistency. The border with Mexico is our problem, but the country of Mexico is not. The Great Wall of China was created for different reasons in a different age, but I would venture that if we had a wall of that build at our borders, we would have far fewer problems with immigration and such than we do now.

It is our problem because it is a very sizable nation which geographically could just as well be part of our nation, or a large part of our nation could be a portion of it. This means that looking at things long-term, or geopolitically there is no doubt that we are always going to be entangled in their affairs.

Putting up a wall isn't going to change the fact that it is important to us whether we have a stable nation on our border, or a failing nation. It's not going to change the fact that whether that nation is allied with countries we consider our enemies or our friends is going to matter to us. It doesn't change the fact that there's always going to be a cultural continuity between the large mass of people on one side of the border and the mass on the other side, regardless of if you build a wall or not. It was the case when we fought at the Alamo and when we signed NAFTA and it's going to be the case 100 years from now too, no matter what issues we're facing.

Frankly, one of the main reasons America has grown into a superpower is because we don't have any borders at which we are threatened. Continuing that fact is essential to our remaining a superpower. So you will find that regardless of how the issues are couched, whether it's about immigration or whatever the issue is 20 years from now, our government is always going to be very concerned with the political situation in Mexico.

[RomaGoth]

No, I don't have any links to scientifically valid surveys done on people as they were illegally crossing the border asking them the purpose of their visit and whether they planned to commit any felonies while in the US.

As for marijuana, based on your inference that the first thing "stoners" will start to do is run around it's pretty obvious you've never smoked or known when you've been around anyone who has. Now, I don't smoke, mostly for the Daniel Tosh rationale - because I'm 25 and I have shit to do, but some quick bullet points
- Legalizing marijuana isn't some moral crusade I'm on (although I do think the War on Drugs has been eroding our liberty and used as cover to pass some real police state laws), it's a fiscal necessity imo. Between the amount spent prosecuting and jailing people, and the taxes that could be reaped it's in the hundreds of billions.
- It's easier, and always has been in my experience, for a HS student to buy marijuana than alcohol. Part of this is the medium of transport - it's easier to carry and hide a small ziploc bag than a 30 rack, but part is also that it's being sold by on the black market with no difference in punishment between selling to a 21 y/o or an 18 y/o.
- You mention secondhand smoke and ask the last time anyone was affected by secondhand anything from alcohol. Do increased violence, decreased inhibition (leading to things like promiscuity and public lewdness), or drunk driving count?
- The fact that you admit the only noticeable difference between marijuana and tobacco and their respective users is the smell should tip you off that maybe it's not that bad. Drunk people are aggressive and make dumb(er) decisions, people on acid literally can't comprehend the world around them, people on crack or meth are so addicted to their next hit they base their entire lives around it and abuse those around them. Stoners? They have really dumb conversations, keep trying to change the channel to the Cartoon Network, and eat all the snack food in the house - it's not the end of the world.

I actually have been around people who smoke it, but thanks for assuming otherwise from a message board.

As far as your argument goes, I am not 100% against legalizing it by any means, but I have yet to see anything that compels me to see it as a logical answer. The argument that it will save millions and generate revenue has some credence, but so would legalizing prostitution and I don't see that happening anytime soon (nor would I want to).

FWIW, I have been in the car with people who are high, and it was not a pleasant experience. As fun as it is to drive 20 mph down the freeway at 2am while other cars are honking at you as they speed by, I will pass on the mary jane thanks.

[RomaGoth]

Laws that would still be in place. No one is suggesting legalizing public consumption of pot.

But don't you see that as a natural consequence, just as alcohol is legal to consume in some public places?

[JPhillips]

I think a better comparison would be smoking in public spaces and for much of the country that's illegal.

[panerd]

I actually have been around people who smoke it, but thanks for assuming otherwise from a message board.

As far as your argument goes, I am not 100% against legalizing it by any means, but I have yet to see anything that compels me to see it as a logical answer. The argument that it will save millions and generate revenue has some credence, but so would legalizing prostitution and I don't see that happening anytime soon (nor would I want to).

FWIW, I have been in the car with people who are high, and it was not a pleasant experience. As fun as it is to drive 20 mph down the freeway at 2am while other cars are honking at you as they speed by, I will pass on the mary jane thanks.

Sorry for flaming you again but your friends sound like a bunch of idiots. I have friends who smoke pot and are perfectly capable members of society. They don't get behind the wheel of a car high (which apparently not only do your friends do but you choose to ride with them) and they don't exhibit the stereotypical behavior that is straight out of a 1930's government propaganda film. But apparently this is the marijuana smoking contingent you know. Sorry to hear that but I do see where your screwed up sense of ideal comes from on this subject.

As far as legal prostitution goes...
1) A woman can come over to my house and cook me dinner
2) A woman can come over to my house and clean it out of the goodness of her heart.
3) A woman can come over to my house and have sex with me for free.
4) I can pay a woman to cook me dinner.
5) I can pay a maid to come clean my house.
6) Why not?

No logical reason except for pure "my morals are better than yours".

[RomaGoth]

Sorry for flaming you again but your friends sound like a bunch of idiots. I have friends who smoke pot and are perfectly capable members of society. They don't get behind the wheel of a car high (which apparently not only do your friends do but you choose to ride with them) and they don't exhibit the stereotypical behavior that is straight out of a 1930's government propaganda film. But apparently this is the marijuana smoking contingent you know. Sorry to hear that but I do see where your screwed up sense of ideal comes from on this subject.

As far as legal prostitution goes...
1) A woman can come over to my house and cook me dinner
2) A woman can come over to my house and clean it out of the goodness of her heart.
3) A woman can come over to my house and have sex with me for free.
4) I can pay a woman to cook me dinner.
5) I can pay a maid to come clean my house.
6) Why not?

No logical reason except for pure "my morals are better than yours".

My mistake. I continue to forget that if an opinion is different on this board, then it is wrong.

Please carry on.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

What is the point of offering an opinion on the board? Is it just to say it, or to debate it? I don't think most of us sit with baited breath to hear your opinion on a subject, so when you proffer it expect people to consider it and debate it.

[BYU 14]

Grouping these two issues (Mexican Cartels/Drugs ; Illegal Immigration) is pretty stupid imo. On the one hand 99% of people coming over the border have nothing to do with drugs or cartels, and on the other hand building some massive fence won't stop the drugs from coming in - if anything it will only up the profits. As long as the potential revenue is as high as it is, prosecuting it harder and driving it further underground will only lead to it being controlled by more and more ruthless people. Legalizing at least marijuana is pretty much a necessity at some point, it's just a matter of how much money we want to waste prosecuting it before the fiscal reality outweighs the moral outrage.

Links or other info to back this up? I would bet it is far less than 99%. I have always loved the "legalize Marijuana" argument as I am sure that will solve all of our problems with a bunch of stoners running around smoking pot in public places, but I digress.

I live in AZ and I would be stunned if it was 99%. With the amount of drug traffic and drug related crime here I would guess closer to 10-15% of the traffic relates to criminal activity. This can't be substantiated and is just a rough guess based on the amount of illegals are estimated to come over and the amount of crime, mostly drug related that is linked to cartels or the drub traffic (Which is not entirely commited by illegals)

I don't have a dog in the Marijuana fight and lean to thinking it should be legal, however if that does happen the cartels just shift their focus to other drugs, so I don't see that being much more than a speed bump.

[Galaxy]

Or we could change our drug laws. I think people will look back at the war on drugs at some point in the future much like we look at the Salem witch hunts, Al Capone, the crusades, the Red Scare, ... It really is quite silly. Write a million laws if you want about driving under the influence, providing drugs to minors, operating machinery under the influence, but make it legal for an adult to smoke a plant. Or let thousands of more Mexicans and South Americans die and then bring in the US military to solve the problem. That plan hasn't really ever backfired in the past 40 years.

I agree with you on the legalization part. What is the realistic chances of that happening?

[Dutch]

I don't have a dog in the Marijuana fight and lean to thinking it should be legal, however if that does happen the cartels just shift their focus to other drugs, so I don't see that being much more than a speed bump.

Good point. I like keeping the near harmless marijuana illegal.

Legalize it and it loses it's near legendary appeal almost instantly.

Drug User #1 -- "Let's go down to the CVS and buy some pot to smoke!"
Drug User #2 -- "That's lame...the US is trying to keep us down by not letting us snort cocaine....let's do that and show the man what's up!!!"

[RainMaker]

Good point. I like keeping the near harmless marijuana illegal.

Legalize it and it loses it's near legendary appeal almost instantly.

Drug User #1 -- "Let's go down to the CVS and buy some pot to smoke!"
Drug User #2 -- "That's lame...the US is trying to keep us down by not letting us snort cocaine....let's do that and show the man what's up!!!"
I don't think it works like that. When alcohol became legal again, the country didn't push it aside for other vices. I think your typical pot smoker is much different from your typical hardcore drug user. Maybe there are people who would go the route you're speaking, but there may also be those people that just stop using drugs altogether. I can remember how "cool" alcohol was when I was under 21, and then I remember how it wasn't a big deal once I could legally buy my own beer.

My problem with marijuana being illegal is it's just a waste of resources. As it stands, it is almost as easy to get marijuana as it is to go to your local supermarket and get a loaf of bread. Laws haven't kept people from doing it at all. The penalties are rather minimal, and the effects on society are the same. It clogs the court system and takes officers off more serious duties. I guess I feel like things would be a little more efficient if we legalized it.

I'm different when it comes to harder drugs. I used to believe that you could make everything legal and let people do what they want with their bodies. But people on drugs like meth cause too much trouble. There is too much crime associated with people who are looking to score. I'd much rather move the resources we put into marijuana into these individuals and either get them rehabilitatied, or get them off our streets.

[RainMaker]

What I want to know is, if legalizing marijuana would end Mexican drug cartel violence (which seems like a pretty big deal) - why the hell doesn't the current leftish administration/congress go anywhere near this issue?
I know everything is left vs right in your world, but has the left ever been for legalization of drugs? They don't go for it for the same reason the right doesn't go for it, it won't get them votes. Older people don't want drugs decriminalized and they are the ones who end up voting in the highest numbers.

I know there have been politicians who have pushed for marijuana legalization on both sides of the aisle. The strongest proponent of decriminalizing all drugs is probably the politician who is the farthest to the right (Ron Paul).

[Dutch]

I don't think it works like that. When alcohol became legal again, the country didn't push it aside for other vices. I think your typical pot smoker is much different from your typical hardcore drug user. Maybe there are people who would go the route you're speaking, but there may also be those people that just stop using drugs altogether. I can remember how "cool" alcohol was when I was under 21, and then I remember how it wasn't a big deal once I could legally buy my own beer.

My problem with marijuana being illegal is it's just a waste of resources. As it stands, it is almost as easy to get marijuana as it is to go to your local supermarket and get a loaf of bread. Laws haven't kept people from doing it at all. The penalties are rather minimal, and the effects on society are the same. It clogs the court system and takes officers off more serious duties. I guess I feel like things would be a little more efficient if we legalized it.

Well, with Alchohol, there is no next step after 180 proof...it's already as "hard" as it can get and totally legal. Weed is to drugs what Coors Lite is to alchohol. Once legalized, the next battle will be to legalize what? Meth? Cocaine? It's just crazy to go down this path.

[RainMaker]

Well, with Alchohol, there is no next step after 180 proof...it's already as "hard" as it can get and totally legal. Weed is to drugs what Coors Lite is to alchohol. Once legalized, the next battle will be to legalize what? Meth? Cocaine? It's just crazy to go down this path.
I just think meth and cocaine are such a big jump from marijuana that it can't be compared to alcohol. I don't think having a Coors Light and then deciding the next night to have some Jack Daniels is the same as moving from marijuana to meth. Alcohol has a similar effect on someone regardless of the type, while each drug gives a unique reaction.

And we already do go down this path. Kids take Ritalin at high rates. Adults on Adderal, Xanax, and anti-depressants. Is marijuana more dangerous than any of those?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Well, with Alchohol, there is no next step after 180 proof...it's already as "hard" as it can get and totally legal. Weed is to drugs what Coors Lite is to alchohol. Once legalized, the next battle will be to legalize what? Meth? Cocaine? It's just crazy to go down this path.

You realize alcohol is a drug, of course. Weed is much closer to alcohol in intoxicating effect than any of those other you mentioned. It would be like arguing during prohibition that having a beer is the first step towards becoming a heroin addict.

[Dutch]

I just think meth and cocaine are such a big jump from marijuana that it can't be compared to alcohol. I don't think having a Coors Light and then deciding the next night to have some Jack Daniels is the same as moving from marijuana to meth. Alcohol has a similar effect on someone regardless of the type, while each drug gives a unique reaction.

When we legalize marijuana nobody will ever want another drug legalized? How can you be so certain?

And we already do go down this path. Kids take Ritalin at high rates. Adults on Adderal, Xanax, and anti-depressants. Is marijuana more dangerous than any of those?

I already stated my thoughts on marijuana. It sounds like your argument is that we could really legalize a bunch of drugs for casual use. Where do we draw the line?

[JPhillips]

For me the determining factor on legalization would be ease of physical addiction. I wouldn't support legalization for drugs that can be addictive within a handful of uses. For other drugs, though, as long as laws are in place to curb public use, it's none of my business if someone wants to get high.

[RainMaker]

When we legalize marijuana nobody will ever want another drug legalized? How can you be so certain?
I'm sure they will. I don't see what that has to do with marijuana though. Each drug is unique and should be treated differently. Just as we do with prescription drugs. I'm not sure why legalizing marijuana would somehow mean we had to legalize every other drug out there.

I already stated my thoughts on marijuana. It sounds like your argument is that we could really legalize a bunch of drugs for casual use. Where do we draw the line?
We draw the line when the use of a drug by certain individuals becomes a danger to the general public.

We allow people to buy handguns but not grenade launchers. We allow them to buy Tylenol over the counter but not Vicodin. We are perfectly capable of drawing lines on things.

[Dutch]

We draw the line when the use of a drug by certain individuals becomes a danger to the general public.

So by this logic, we need to prohibit the use of alchohol again. Perhaps that's the next step after legalizing weed?

[Chubby]

I just think meth and cocaine are such a big jump from marijuana that it can't be compared to alcohol. I don't think having a Coors Light and then deciding the next night to have some Jack Daniels is the same as moving from marijuana to meth. Alcohol has a similar effect on someone regardless of the type, while each drug gives a unique reaction.

And we already do go down this path. Kids take Ritalin at high rates. Adults on Adderal, Xanax, and anti-depressants. Is marijuana more dangerous than any of those?

Those drugs have better lobbyists.

[Autumn]

Wow. The good news is if this works out she's got at least a TV movie out of the deal.

[fpres]

Good luck to her. I hope I'm wrong, but this has 'bad ending' written all over it. Apparently, she has an infant son.

[I. J. Reilly]

I hope she’s completely incompetent, that's probably her only chance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Good luck to her. I hope I'm wrong, but this has 'bad ending' written all over it.

+1

[JonInMiddleGA]

I hope she’s completely incompetent, that's probably her only chance.

Unless she's actually a mole.

[I. J. Reilly]

Unless she's actually a mole.

Which might buy her some time, but will probably end the same way.

[cartman]

Is 'Guadalupe' Spanish for 'Rock Ridge'?

[Karlifornia]

Why do people have such a hard on for deciding what people do in their own homes? If you drive high, then you should get in trouble. If you wanna burn on your couch to make late night TV more watchable, why should I stand in the way?

I think Dutch missed his calling as a professional babysitter.

[molson]

At least try to buy American weed so you're not funding the cartels