• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

YOUR solution to the Mexico Crisis

I am ot against personal freedom to do what you want to your own body. If I implied that it was unintentional and I don't recall doing so.

My main points are the baggage that comes with an addicts life that affects those around them. All the cals for service I have dealt with over the years have made me extremely intolerant to junkies and if there was a simple solution to the problem (there is not) I would be all for it.

The biggest argument I hear is that legalizing drugs would stop the drug war. Maybe but maybe not.

My main point I raised earlier and I will sound redundant is the ******** that surrounds a junkie's life. Cheap drugs or not good quality or not a meth addict or heroin addict or somebody using PCP is still going to hurt a family memeber, friend or innocent. (Not all addicts) There are too many complications just from drug use itself that cause problems for others. Fill your vains full of crap, I don't care, but I cannot abide having someone high on PCP having the right to go into the public while they are high on that crap. Ten years ago I was in a fight for my life with somebody high on PCP and if it wasn't for an innocent bystander I would not be here to debate and discuss this issue. Anyway I am babbling and it is late.


I may be repeating myself here.

But as you well know, the illegality of drugs does not stop those who want to get high. Some people will do whatever it takes to get high. Junkies will act up no matter what. By keeping drugs illegal, all it does is empower gangs by giving them an easy to make, very high profit product.

Remove the illegality, and the profit motive for gangs will no longer exist. Without the high profit, there is no reason for them to be in the business. There may still be a problem with individuals, but a lot of the gang violence will decrease.

This might be oversimplifying, but it has worked in other countries.
 
And where government corruption is part of the problem, then what?

Then arrange for the corrupt officials to be removed as bloodlessly as possible.

Who/where on Earth are you going to bomb/shoot? Where do you think these guys are entrenched? Is some cave in the hills?

the DLs would be most likely living in Mansions or Plantations well removed from the city. A simple MOAB should do the trick, or if they live in the city, PGMs should do.
 
Then arrange for the corrupt officials to be removed as bloodlessly as possible.



the DLs would be most likely living in Mansions or Plantations well removed from the city. A simple MOAB should do the trick, or if they live in the city, PGMs should do.

Lol, hell yeh! Or alternatively, we could send in:

picture.php
picture.php
picture.php
 
Start from legalisation.

Why this is not obvious for everyone is quite perplexing. And why governments keep ignoring scientific analysis on the risks of drugs (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R..._(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg) and adapt legislations is shocking indeed.

Because the notion that letting corporations deal drugs will reduce the numbers of addicts and make the cartels vanish is completely based on wishful thinking and faith.
 
Because the notion that letting corporations deal drugs will reduce the numbers of addicts and make the cartels vanish is completely based on wishful thinking and faith.

No it's not. It's demonstrable. How often do you see gangsters shooting it out over shipments of whiskey on the streets of Chicago these days?
 
No it's not. It's demonstrable. How often do you see gangsters shooting it out over shipments of whiskey on the streets of Chicago these days?

No country in recent history has ever made hard drugs like crack and meth commercially available. It's faith.
 
If I were the mexican government, I'd gather all the gangs, arm them as much as possible and then send them to invade the US. Quickly grab a few key cities and hold the population hostage to force the US to de-criminalize all cocaine and other drugs imported from mexico and then tax the ensuing trade, thus quickly becoming one of the richest nations in the world. It also solves the internal violence problem as all the armed gangs are now part of the proud national army.

It worked for the british in the 19th century after all.
 
No country in recent history has ever made hard drugs like crack and meth commercially available. It's faith.

Yes they have. Cocaine was widely available up until the 1920's (there were riots in Sydney when they first banned it) and methamphetamine was available on prescription for the better part of forty years, it was only fully in America in 1983.
 
Yes they have. Cocaine was widely available up until the 1920's (there were riots in Sydney when they first banned it) and methamphetamine was available on prescription for the better part of forty years, it was only fully in America in 1983.

Yeah then the government banned the stuff because physicians and society realized that it was screwing people up big time.

Regarding methamphetamine, it's still available under the name Desoxyn where it has the label;

ADMINISTRATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE FOR PROLONGED PERIODS MAY LEAD TO DRUG DEPENDENCE. THE DRUG SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED OR DISPENSED SPARINGLY. MISUSE MAY CAUSE SUDDEN DEATH AND SERIOUS CARDIOVASCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS.

In other words; don't sell this stuff to every buttwipe that asks for it. Your not comparing apple and apples. "On prescription" still means it's a controlled substance. It's still illegal to deal the stuff on the street.
 
Last edited:
Yeah then the government banned the stuff because physicians and society realized that it was screwing people up big time.

Yes. And since then methamphetamine and cocaine abuse has increased by orders of magnitude and drug cartels have attained power and profits of such dizzying heights that they actually challenge the power and imperil the very sovereignty of states. Prohibition is clearly a failed policy.

Regarding methamphetamine, it's still available under the name Desoxyn where it has the label;



In other words; don't sell this stuff to every buttwipe that asks for it.

And look how that turned out; a rash of clandestine laboratories breaking out all across the world, widespread addiction, stratospheric profits for organised crime, and all of the associated violence which that sort of money inevitably brings. Brilliant strategy.
 
Last edited:
If I were the mexican government, I'd gather all the gangs, arm them as much as possible and then send them to invade the US. Quickly grab a few key cities and hold the population hostage to force the US to de-criminalize all cocaine and other drugs imported from mexico and then tax the ensuing trade, thus quickly becoming one of the richest nations in the world. It also solves the internal violence problem as all the armed gangs are now part of the proud national army.

It worked for the british in the 19th century after all.

That's Begging for a wing of b-2s to drop some presents over Mexico City
 
I posted this in the other drug thread, will post again because it's well worth the read:

'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation'

Transform's latest major publication, 'After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' was launched at an event in the House of Commons on the 12th of November 2009, with simultaneous launches taking place in the US, Australia and Mexico.

There is a growing recognition around the world that the prohibition of drugs is a counterproductive failure. However, a major barrier to drug law reform has been a widespread fear of the unknown—just what could a post-prohibition regime look like?

For the first time, ‘After the War on Drugs: Blueprint for Regulation' answers that question by proposing specific models of regulation for each main type and preparation of prohibited drug, coupled with the principles and rationale for doing so.

We demonstrate that moving to the legal regulation of drugs is not an unthinkable, politically impossible step in the dark, but a sensible, pragmatic approach to control drug production, supply and use.
 
Yes. And since then methamphetamine abuse has increased by an order of magnitudes. Prohibition is clearly a failed policy.
/QUOTE]


And look how that turned out; a rash of clandestine laboratories breaking out all across the world, widespread addiction, stratospheric profits for organised crime, and all of the associated violence which that sort of money inevitably brings. Brilliant strategy.

Sorry, but that doesn't prove your claim that eliminating restrictions on harmful substances will lead to less drug users and make the Mexican cartels go away.
 
Sorry, but that doesn't prove your claim that eliminating restrictions on harmful substances will lead to less drug users and make the Mexican cartels go away.

It proves that drug prohibition creates widespread addiction and the very existence of drug cartels. For starters, take away the massive profit motive and drug cartels cease to exist, it's basic supply-and-demand economics of the sort that you love so much, drug cartels are the product of a distorted market of artificial prices. The experience of alcohol prohibition in America proves beyond a shadow of doubt that that banning a substance results in increased abuse rates and increased harm from unregulated products, creates a profit motive that becomes a natural incubator for organised crime, and that by legalising and regulating the sale of the object of prohibition is a dagger to the heart of organised crime structures that rely on the profits of the illegal goods.

Secondly, there is ample epidemiological evidence to suggest that regulating drug use actually leads to reduction in use. For instance, studies in Switzerland have found that by medicalising heroin addiction and providing a medically administered heroin maintenance programme that not only does heroin abuse, and most of the problems associated with it (crime, health problems etc), decrease but so do heroin uptake rates. Heroin addiction becomes increasingly stigmatic as young people begin to see heroin users less as romantic, disestablishmentarian figures and more of the sort of sad losers with a medical problem that they are. Not only that, but wherever drug law reform has been instituted, whether be decriminialisation in Holland or Portugal, or heroin trials in Switzerland and Canada, the re-regulation of illicit drugs, the bringing of the drug market back into the fold of the state, has resulted in a reduction in addiction rates and a reduction in overall drug abuse.

The War on Drugs is an abysmal failure, a stupendous waste of capital and resources and a ridiculous market distortion that make drugs the most profitable and unregulated market on the planet, the implications of which are felt on a daily basis from Ciudad Juarez to LA, Afghanistan to Brooklyn, Burma to Parramatta. Billions of dollars are leeched out of the economy every year, violence and corruption plagues everywhere drugs come in contact with, millions of people are sucked into webs of addiction and misery, all because of a market distortion imposed on the drug trade by misguided governments. No matter how you look at it, the minor harm impacted by re-regulating illicit drugs pales in comparison to the huge damage that leaving the market unchecked, untaxed, and masively overinflated. Not even close.
 
Prohibition did not increase addiction rates. You pulled that out of nether-regions.

After prohibition was implemented alcohol continued to be consumed. However, how much compared to pre-Prohibition levels remains unclear. Studies examining the rates of cirrhosis deaths as a proxy for alcohol consumption estimated a decrease in consumption of 10-20%.[4][5][6] One study reviewing city-level drunkenness arrests came to a similar result.[7] And, yet another study examining "mortality, mental health and crime statistics" found that alcohol consumption fell, at first, to to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level; but, over the next several years, increased to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level.[8]

The rest of your appeals are equally bogus. Legal drugs are the leading cause of preventable death in the developed world, costing the health-care system a fortune every year. That's not a very flattering model for your laissez faire drug utopia. Your stupid idea would end up killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending the government bankrupt. Might have something to do with why no government has been suicidal enough to try it.
 
First of all you don't know if the drugs would be dirt cheap you are assuming, but you do not know for sure.

If anyone and their mother can plant a few pot plants or a few opium poppies in their back yards, anyone charging an arm and a leg for pot or opium isn't going to be able to sell anything.
 
The last thing we need is to give more power to the war on drugs. The government in my opinion has already accrued too much power on the war on drugs and the war on terror.
 
If anyone and their mother can plant a few pot plants or a few opium poppies in their back yards, anyone charging an arm and a leg for pot or opium isn't going to be able to sell anything.


Ding Ding Ding! And we have a winner!

Let me answer the next question right now. "But won't that mean everybody will be high all the time?" Yes, it will. Just like...the way things now with alcohol, when everybody is perpetually drunk on our home-brewed beer and bathtub gin.

There is no simple fix to the cartel violence in Mexico, but reducing their revenue stream could only be a good thing.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom