Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Legalizing drugs -- what Obama and Calderon won't discuss

By Edward Schumacher-Matos

The best thing that can be said about the 23,000 people who have been killed during Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s campaign against drug cartels in the last three years is that it proves that the war on drugs will never work.

President Obama calls Calderon Mexico’s Elliott Ness and is receiving him today in an official state visit. Calderon is surely a brave man, and he is right to fight to curb the power of the drug cartels inside Mexico. His predecessor as head of his National Action Party, former presidential candidate Diego Fernandez de Cevallo, has gone missing; the suspicion is that a drug cartel has kidnapped him. The cartels have infiltrated much of the police and government and run many border towns through fear.

But Elliott Ness never stopped illegal liquor. The lifting of Prohibition did. Similarly, the only solution to the drug trafficking and violence on both sides of the border is to legalize drugs.

That, however, won’t be on the agenda in the talk between the two presidents. Rather, the talk will be of improving police intelligence collaboration, of speeding up delivery of promised military aid under Plan Merida, of cutting off the flow of guns and money back into Mexico, of Mexican efforts to clean up corruption and improve its enforcement capabilities. All that is necessary for Mexico’s normal development and immediate crisis, but none of it will put much of a dent in the flow of drugs.

Some in Congress cite Colombia as an example of what can be done with enough Latin guts and American money -- $6 billion under Plan Colombia. But while it is true that there are no longer politically powerful Colombian kingpins of the likes of Pablo Escobar, the amount of cocaine coming out of Colombia has hardly changed. Indeed, we can’t stop the drug trade on the streets of our own suburbs, cities and towns.

Calderon has proved that Mexico has been willing to sacrifice, but there is simply too much money involved. By some estimates, $15 billion a year is sent back to Mexico. And let's be gruesomely honest: all that money comes from Americans who continue to smoke and snort Mexican blood at will. Yet other Americans, such as the governors of Arizona and Texas, want to slap Mexico in the face by sending more National Guard troops to the border. Where does responsibility for the law-breaking lie?

Still, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have gotten in on the act, demanding more border enforcement. Even New York’s Sen. Charles Schumer (D), bless his liberal heart. The grandstanding makes for good domestic politics, but little common sense. It plays on people’s fears of crime and violence “spilling” across the border, fears stoked by the 24-hour news cycle and all of us in the media who use such shorthand phrases. The fact is, however, that there is almost no crime “spilling” across the border. With the glaring exception of kidnapping among cartel members in Phoenix, crime is down in the border states.

Border towns such as El Paso, Texas, and Nogales, Arizona, are rated as some of the safest places in the country. Most border mayors from Texas to California oppose militarizing the border. The El Paso city council voted for a resolution condemning Arizona’s new anti-immigrant law. Earlier, sensibly, it voted for a resolution in favor of a national legalization of drugs.

Maybe we should move the capital to El Paso.

By Schumacher-Matos  | May 19, 2010; 6:08 PM ET
Categories:  Schumacher-Matos  | Tags:  Schumacher-Matos  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Elena Kagan and 'Stupid Liberals'
Next: Rand Paul, pure Tea Partyer. Mitch McConnell, not so much

Comments

What else would you expect from President Barack W. OBusha?

Posted by: jerkhoff | May 19, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant exposition, Eduardo. Such a digger when it comes to homework. You're so right that "there is almost no crime 'spilling' across the border". http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/08/18/drug_cartel.ART_ART_08-18-08_B6_46B2B8J.html?sid=101 'Spillage' is definitely not a word that applies when the water overtops the dam.
P.S. Knowing what a hound you are for research, I suggest that you look up an airport in Mena, Arkansas and see if that has any effect on your understanding of flow rates.

Posted by: beowulf3 | May 19, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

I could not agree more; imagine what Chicago would look like if we had allowed Prohibition to run for 50 years, and you have a pretty good view of what Colombians of several generations have had to live through. Now, with drug war interdiction successes in the Caribbean, the drug cartels have turned to Mexico as the main route to haul the stuff to the states, and that country is truly suffering. But to see how little sway this argument has in a highly politicized Washington, ask yourself why this is a 'Post partisan' piece instead of an op-ed?

Posted by: Portola | May 20, 2010 1:09 AM | Report abuse

I could not agree more; imagine what Chicago would look like if we had allowed Prohibition to run for 50 years, and you have a pretty good view of what Colombians of several generations have had to live through. Now, with drug war interdiction successes in the Caribbean, the drug cartels have turned to Mexico as the main route to haul the stuff to the states, and that country is truly suffering. But to see how little sway this argument has in a highly politicized Washington, ask yourself why this is a 'Post partisan' piece instead of an op-ed?

Posted by: Portola | May 20, 2010 1:11 AM | Report abuse

The war on drugs is a tale of a once great and free nation which fell down a rat hole into a fantasy world riddled with peculiar and dystopian logic.

No amount of money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safe again; only an end to prohibition can do that. How much longer are we willing to foolishly risk our own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution?

If we continue to support prohibition then we're doing nothing but helping evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.

Posted by: malcolmkyle | May 20, 2010 4:35 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for pointing out the elephant in the room. It's so obvious what prohibition did in the 1920s and continues to do today in cities and small towns across America. I can't even figure out who the stake-holders are anymore in our "War on Drugs," other than habit, laziness and lack of political courage.

Posted by: SageThrasher | May 20, 2010 9:12 AM | Report abuse

It is amazing how many people don't seem to realize that the drug war is just Prohibition all over again.

It would be *far* cheaper and far safer for the public at large to just deal with treating drug abusers than to have to deal with that and the crime and the violence associated with the illegal drug trade.

Posted by: sullivanjc | May 20, 2010 9:44 AM | Report abuse

This is the most ridiculous set of statements I've read in a long time,even beyond "Arizona's Un-fair Immigration Law" opinions.

It is obvious someone is hooked on more than clean air and grey cells have been lost.

Legalizing Alcohol has created the largest killer in America.

Most liberals want more Gun Control and Legalized Pot. Talk about misguidance...Saying Guns don't kill people, people do, is exactly the same as saying alcohol and pot don't kill either. Get real.

There's nothing more dangerous than an irresponsible drunk or druggie with a firearm, and the majority of those firearms are blackmarketed. Legally owned guns(a constitutional right) are not the problem. The underlying problem is who uses them and for what purpose. Mainly, a drug/alcohol related crime.

Even though this consistent method of laying blame on the end result has gotten us nowhere, we still refuse to attack the problem at it's source. We refuse to make a law and stick to it. We allow Judges to consistently free criminals to repeat the offense or worse. We cater to criminals as though we did them wrong. Some having it better in jail than at home.

Where we went wrong in the war on drugs is in the same failing we have in securing our borders. Our Government has let us down. Too many liberals in Congress, too much money swaying Congress and too many weak-kneed Presidents.

At what point will people with attitudes like these realize they just gave up America to anybody and everybody? Will it take the reality of a of drug related death in their family to finally hit home? Or when your last REAL Freedom is stripped by killers and criminals or will they shrug that off too.

If we had politicians with Balls instead of deep pockets we could easily defeat these problems but we don't. Everyday, America seems to fall deeper and deeper into the pit of complacency.

Wake up and get sober, if you can, there are no friends in the drug world. Your open acceptance of these people means nothing to them except what they can get from you. They will kill you as soon as look at you when they have no more use for you.

Legalizing Pot is not an answer, just an excuse. Grow up, try to function with a clear head or better yet, move to Mexico!

Posted by: rsmowery | May 20, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

An important aspect of Individual freedom is the right to do with yourself as you please as long as your actions cause no unnecessary suffering or direct harm to others. Many among us may disagree with this, and they should be free to believe what they wish, but the moment they are willing to use force to impose their will on the rest of us, is the exact same moment that the petty criminals/dealers, the Mafia, drug barons, terrorists and corrupt government officials/agencies enter the equation. The problems created by self harm then rapidly pale into insignificance as society spirals downwards into a dark abyss, while the most shady characters and 'black-market corporate entities' exponentially enrich themselves in a feeding frenzy likened to that of piranhas on bath-tub meth.

Posted by: malcolmkyle | May 20, 2010 10:13 AM | Report abuse

rsmowery; Go back to high school economics class, and learn about supply and DEMAND. Learn that you cannot up DEMAND simply by upping supply. Contrary to popular held superstition, drugs are not PUSHED, the drug dealers are filling a DEMAND not creating one. The DEMAND is here in the US and is impossible to control, but what is possible to control, is the income from that DEMAND. All we have to do is allow legal businesses to meet that DEMAND. Under proper regulation drug use will not rise, as it couldn't get any worse than it is at present.

And one last thought: The real “drug Dons” are the rich and powerful who control the government-licensed drug cartel (Big Pharma). They view people who oppose proper regulation of these unpatentable --thus at present illegal-- substances, as “useful idiots”

If you support prohibition then you've helped trigger the worst crime wave in history.

If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.

If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.

If you support prohibition you've helped raise gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.

If you support prohibition you've helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.

If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.

If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.

If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.

If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.

If you support prohibition you've helped overcrowd the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others.

If you support prohibition you've helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.

If you still support prohibition then prepare yourself for even more death, corruption, sickness, imprisonment, unemployment, foreclosed homes, and the complete loss of the rule of law and the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: malcolmkyle | May 20, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

I think it is time to reframe the rhetoric of this "debate". When Teddy Roosevelt was in office, anyone could buy heroin, cocaine, opium or cannabis. While that is not the best situation, there was at that NO drug violence, NO cartels, and NO incipient police state.

Therefore these points need to be made in strident and uncompromising terms to all , but especially politicians -- 1) those who oppose legalization enable the violence and share guilt with those who "snort Mexican blood". 2) as there were many users in the pre-ban era, but NO drug violence, obstructionists obviously are the critical component preventing a reduction of violence. 3) "saving" any number of informed people from addiction is not worth the murder, torture or oppression of even ONE innocent person, much less the destruction of a free society.

Think about it -- if you are AGAINST legalization, you are *for* the cartels and associated violence. They cannot exist without your continued support.

Posted by: jabez | May 20, 2010 10:27 AM | Report abuse

Not sure how the writer tied legalizing drugs into States concerned with illegal immigration. Using his logic, they are the same problem, i.e., legalizing drugs means doing away with illegal border crossings?

Alcohol is a dangerous substance. It is addictive, its lethal dose is easily achieved, and it accounts for more violence, more crime, more sickness, more death and more arrests than all other drugs combined. Costs of pain and suffering of both people who abuse alcohol and people affected by it cannot be estimated, however, we do know alcohol abuse and its related problems cost society many billions of dollars each year. Justifying legalization of hard drugs based on the fact alcohol is legalized is a poor argument and shows that Mr. Schumacher-Matos doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Posted by: avatar666 | May 20, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

The stakeholders in the War on Drugs are the big pharmaceutical companies who make no money from marijuana. That's their beef. The biggest drug problems facing America are addiction to Oxycontin and methamphetamine. These are downplayed because Big Pharma makes a ton of money selling Oxycontin and the ephedrine needed to make meth. No one has ever died from pot. Wanna stop the border violence? Let people grow pot in their backyards.

Posted by: dnahatch1 | May 20, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Richard "Tricky Dick" Nixon was a real piece of work. He appointed a commission to study the legalization of marijuana 40 years ago. Nixon ignored their advice to legalize and "declared war" on those hippie anti-war protesters who smoked weed. His motivation was one of hate when he created the DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration. He hated anti-war college kids. Just look at the Kent State Massacre of 1970.

According to the LA Times, "After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread." It is just part of our "Good Neighbor" policy with our friends and neighbors in Latin America.

Posted by: alance | May 20, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

There is nothing to be said for the virtue of weed or any other drug that controls the minds of it's victim.

If you're going to be controlled then you're going to be controlled.

Perhaps we need another state that all the avowed drugsters can go to.

Posted by: klassylady25 | May 20, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

rsmowery says -- "At what point will people with attitudes like these realize they just gave up America to anybody and everybody? Will it take the reality of a of drug related death in their family to finally hit home? Or when your last REAL Freedom is stripped by killers and criminals or will they shrug that off too."

Rsmowery, do you understand that the Framers could walk out of Convention Hall and buy a pound of opium, and bring it inside and lay it on the table without even drawing comment?

ON THIS ISSUE, YOU CANNOT WRAP YOURSELF IN THE FLAG. THE FOUNDERS WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED YOU AN OBNOXIOUS BUSYBODY *AT BEST*.

The borders and your 2nd Amendment rights can be re-secured, the cartels and dealers destroyed, criminals jailed and your tax bill reduced, but ONLY if the government allows expendable loser stoners to have what they want, preferably under controlled conditions. If they kill themselves, SO BE IT.

Personally, I doubt your sincerity. Most obstructionists not only like the status quo, but also approve of the long-term trend to ever-increasing violence, corruption and loss of liberty. The alacrity with which you accuse people of being users is a classic sign that you are 'talking your book'.

I will put those doubts aside if you wish to debate specifics about plans to change the current trend...

Posted by: jabez | May 20, 2010 11:12 AM | Report abuse

avatar666 says -- "Justifying legalization of hard drugs based on the fact alcohol is legalized is a poor argument..."

How about 23+ thousand people killed, at 10% of which were completely innocent by even Calderon's estimate? Do the corpses of 2300 INNOCENT people get on your radar screen? How many self-motivated loser junkies have to be "saved" to make THAT worthwhile?

Posted by: jabez | May 20, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

mowery and 'klassylady' -- Im afraid that a decent understanding of the concepts upon which our nation was founded seems to have escaped you.

Please understand that, regardless of your feelings about the manner in which I choose to pursue happiness, I am entitled to do so. Even if you don't approve, nonetheless it is my right. Even if you think that it will harm me, it is my right. Even if you think that God Himself disapproves, nonetheless it is my right.

You are fully within your rights to attempt to convince me to change my conduct, but until and unless my behavior harms others or puts them at risk, you have no moral justification to use or threaten to use force to change my actions.

The fact that the War on Some Drugs has eroded respect for that principle is one of the worse, if not the worst, harmful effect of this stupid prohibition. It will change, in time, but I'm sadly certain that there will be more deaths and more ruined lives before that happy day arrives.

Posted by: RoyScherer | May 20, 2010 11:33 AM | Report abuse

klassylady25 says -- "There is nothing to be said for the virtue of weed or any other drug that controls the minds of it's victim."

Heh. I assume you MUST be a non-user of that physically addictive, habituating CNS drug, caffeine. No coffee, tea, diet sodas, or chocolate for you, right? Kudos...

Posted by: jabez | May 20, 2010 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"There is nothing to be said for the virtue of weed or any other drug that controls the minds of it's victim."
-klassylady25

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest you've never smoked marijuana in your entire life.

Is this my opinion, or is marijuana CONTROLLING MY MIND?!?!?!?!

Posted by: Gover | May 20, 2010 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Listen my children and you shall hear. Of the midnight raid of the DEA. They shot my dog and killed my daughter, but the house they were after was next door.

This endless slaughter of innocents should make us all really proud. It is the abuse of power that makes us all victims of a government gone mad with unenforceable legislation and no political will to change.

Posted by: alance | May 20, 2010 11:45 AM | Report abuse

Drugs (save cannabis) will NOT be legalized in America. Simply put, your average, voting, middle class American believes that drugs must remain illegal in order to send a message to their children that drug use is bad. There is no more powerful reason than that. The discussion should end unless someone can tell me how this will change. There is ZERO indication that it will anytime soon. These Americans don't give a damn about "Mexican blood", just like they didn't give a damn about black junkies or crackheads in the city; when they had an opportunity to put up the funds to do something about those people, they opted instead to spend it on anti-pot ads for tweens. These are the hard facts, people. Back in the '70s, mainstream media was awash in stories favorable to legalization/decriminalization. Same with the early '90s. Decades later, NOTHING HAS FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED. Don't be fooled by the recent movement on cannabis; that's only happening, and at a snail's pace at that, because a huge portion of Americans have grown up with it. Tell me when most middle class folks will have grown up with coke in the nostrils, or meth on their breath? Not bloody likely...

Posted by: gibbonesque | May 20, 2010 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"Drugs (save cannabis) will NOT be legalized in America."

They have to be, or America will cease to exist, except _perhaps_ 'in name only'.

"Simply put, your average, voting, middle class American believes that drugs must remain illegal in order to send a message to their children that drug use is bad. There is no more powerful reason than that."

The truth is, their children's safety will be greatly enhanced when all drugs are available by prescription. Perhaps they will realize that soon.

"The discussion should end..."

That is ridiculous. No way.

"...unless someone can tell me how this will change."

There is a lack of specific solutions on the table. Good point. I intend to change that.

"These Americans don't give a damn about "Mexican blood"..."

Many actually don't make the connection between illegality and violence. The violence kills many non-minorities, BTW. I personally knew several now-deceased people who were NOT involved in the drug trade, and would not have died were drugs not against the law.

In sum -- everyone in America, excepting persons engaged in illegal distribution, will be safer when Schedule 1 drugs are available by prescription.
1) legalizing drugs does not mandate amnesty for past or present criminals, within the timeframes imposed by statutes of limitations.
2) children will be less tempted by drugs when they are legal, and parents are more likely to know about it if they do fall prey...

Posted by: jabez | May 20, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"The truth is, their children's safety will be greatly enhanced when all drugs are available by prescription."

Perhaps, but who is advocating making NON-MEDICAL psychoactive drug use available by prescription? Doctors want nothing to do with that, and they never have.

"Perhaps they will realize that soon."

Perhaps, but where's the evidence?

"Many actually don't make the connection between illegality and violence."

That's true, but as long as the violence is happening somewhere else, they aren't likely to care enough to think hard about it. This is why the most dimwitted, fear mongering arguments connecting drugs and the worst kinds of crime (murderous violence) still resonate and reinforce prohibition. Just because more people are talking about this in the press doesn't mean your average schmo is any less convinced that banning drugs is the safest way to go. We've been through this before...

"The violence kills many non-minorities, BTW."

Really? Drug-related violence still, in America at least, takes place mostly within minority communities. Unless, of course, you're talking about drunken bar brawls.

In the end, I'm far more in favor of policy approaches loosely defined as "legalization" than I am the current nightmare. I just don't think the kind of liberalization of drug laws necessary to make an impact on the black market violence problem (true commercialized sale of drugs) has any chance in hell of garnering majoritarian political support. The entire history of US drug policy reinforces this belief.

"The discussion should end..."
"That is ridiculous. No way."

Doesn't anyone ever get tired of evangelizing for legalization?

Posted by: gibbonesque | May 20, 2010 2:28 PM | Report abuse

The "War on Drugs" has been, is, and will be an expensive waste of time. Since we apparently cannot curb the demand for them in the U.S. (and elsewhere), just like liquor in the 20's, we ought to put an end to this charade and legalize them - AND TAX THEM. Treat abuse the same way as liquor. Public incapacitation, including driving would put you in jail, but the various governments at federal, state and local levels would instantly get the crime and profit out of these drugs and deal with them as a social issue. As long as there is this much demand and this much money involved, we will have crime and we will not stop it. May as well make some money selling them safely and legally.

Posted by: Pearl77 | May 20, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Okay, maybe there is different perspective from a Northeast reporter and a person on the front lines of this war, but to say that border cities are safe is a lie and poor journalism. No wonder so many of our states are ignorant on the damage illegal aliens and the drug cartels have done to this country. I challenge any of you to spend a week on our borders (totally unprotected would drive the point home on the first evening) and still have this Pollyanna, uninformed, arrogant opinion.
.
Listen, here’s a clue regarding the drug use in this country…we have allowed the free-flow unencumbered transport of drug…plain and simple! Nancy Pelosi’s take is that it’s cheaper to place a citizen into rehab than to protect our citizens…tell that to the millions whose families have been destroyed by drugs. We are loosing our teenagers, because we have allowed easy tantalizing access – you want to pit Suzy and Johnny up against professional sub-human criminals then blame the teenagers?
.
You like our president and other presidents before him have not bothered to live the damage yet you have simple answers…no wonder the majority of Americans have lost trust and faith in our government to perform their sworn duty to protect our borders and our citizens and our news media to investigate and report the truth!
.
Ignorance is NOT bliss when you have to live someone else’s ignorance - those that we have elected and those that have failed their professional duty of journalism!

Posted by: majorman06 | May 20, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse

gibbonesque says -- "Perhaps, but who is advocating making NON-MEDICAL psychoactive drug use available by prescription?"

I am, as is any other person of good intent who has thought carefully about it. Small pool currently, I grant you, but there is lots more room. I note that you agree it is the only way to destroy the black market. Weird, ain't it? The only way to stabilize our society is restore our right to screw ourselves up. Even if doctors know better...

"Doctors want nothing to do with that, and they never have."

They were the prime motivators behind the ban in the first place (early 1900's), and are currently in hock to big pharma, i.e., at the root of the problem. Who cares what they want? Hell, they tried to make vitamins prescription only in the last "progressive" political cycle.

"Perhaps, but where's the evidence?"

Evidence of what? Are you saying you don't take the point that the evidence indicates legalization will equal reduction of violence? I thought you understood that.

"but as long as the violence is happening somewhere else [...] Really? Drug-related violence still, in America at least, takes place mostly within minority communities."

I really have no clue where you live, but there is plenty where I live. I already told you that. It has taken many white lives, as well as black and brown, and many were not involved in the trade in any way, including usage. And in case you have not noticed, the voter demographic is changing.

"Doesn't anyone ever get tired of evangelizing for legalization?"

Don't you ever get tired o the "current nightmare"? I am having trouble understanding your apparent inertia (coupled w/ mild irritation). You apparently agree that legalization will reduce violence, and I assume you understand that legalization will reduce the ongoing erosion of our liberties, but you don't want anybody to talk about it....

Huh?

Posted by: jabez | May 20, 2010 5:09 PM | Report abuse

majorman06 says -- "We are loosing our teenagers, because we have allowed easy tantalizing access – you want to pit Suzy and Johnny up against professional sub-human criminals then blame the teenagers?"

Some points -- 1) Suzy and Johnny will less interested in the drug scene if there is no money or power in it.
2) illegal drugs are easier to get undetected (and sometimes cheaper) than prescription drugs.
3) In a prescription-oriented system, Suzy and Johnny are not up against criminals. Just a pharmacist...

Sub-point -- in Suzy and Johnny's high school class are the drug lords of the future. If they do not like Suzy and/or Johnny, Suzy and/or Johnny got big-time life-long trouble. When the local drug-lords don't like you, NOBODY likes you. Suzy and Johnny both know that.

Posted by: jabez | May 20, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"Some points -- 1) Suzy and Johnny will less interested in the drug scene if there is no money or power in it."
Listen, bub, the majority sell drugs to substain their drug habit...you don't know what you are talking about...evidently!

Posted by: majorman06 | May 20, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

major -- "Listen, bub, the majority sell drugs to substain their drug habit...you don't know what you are talking about...evidently!"

Sure I do. That said, the point is that they will be LESS ATTRACTED TO THE DRUGS SCENE IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THERE IS NO MONEY IN IT.

Surely, as an expert, you understand that...

Posted by: jabez | May 20, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

To all that disagree with my point of view on this subject, that's fine. I respect that. However, to assume I have no experience in the issues as I presented them is misleading.
I have no intent to restrict your right to blow your brains out or to choose what animal you wish to sleep with but I do and will fight to keep pathway drugs out of our schools, off of our highways, criminals in jail and slack politicians out of office.
California(Hollywood) constantly, abrasively, insultingly and forcefully promotes a "Smoke Free California". These same people insist "Killer"2nd hand smoke is migrating through every crack and crevice. They have banned smoking inside and outside to the extend of not being able to smoke on the beach, WHAT?,and yet they are leading the way for legalization of Pot in our country. Where do they propose to smoke it? It's illegal to smoke in their cars if they have children with them. It's illegal to smoke in Bars,Resturants,Parks and at least 90% of anywhere public. Of course we know they wouldn't think of smoking it inside their homes where the 2nd hand smoke would be of danger to the rest of the occupants or their neighbors. And how do they intend to determine when someone is "over the legal limit"?
This is the typical distorted logic of a Pothead.
Smoke it if you wish, grow it if you wish, chew it,spit it cram it where the sun doesn't shine. I don't care, but stop with the Bull about your FREEDOM is worth more than mine. Stop with your Bull that there will be such a fantasic Tax benefit to America. And STOP pushing the blame on Meth etc. as being the BIG problem. Pot is what got them to Meth. Economics is what what got them to Meth. Complacent Social Attitudes is what got them to Meth. Corporate America (you may have to strain your hazed brain to figure this one out) is what got them to Meth, but leading the way is Pot.
I am all for legalizing Pot, Meth, Alcohol,Prostitution or Bubbles up my Butt, IF, you can guarantee me you won't drive under the influence, commit a crime while under the influence, expose children to it,blow it in my face, make someone else's life or death decision while under the influence,a safe sanctuary from you and yours or become my Representative.

Posted by: rsmowery | May 22, 2010 11:58 AM | Report abuse

The War on Drugs Inc., is a multi-million dollar conglomerate like the oil industry or the military-industrial complex. Nobody messes with it. Legalizing drugs would be an economic disaster for the contractors, suppliers, law enforcement, etc...Don't be silly to even think of trying to disrupt it...It will be a war that will continue and continue, like the "war(s)" against terrorism...This is the new and continuing reality...And it's so easy for government and the politicians to embrace...1984 anyone?

Posted by: marinepro2 | May 25, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

The fact that 23,000 people have been killed, ostensibly during Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s campaign against drug cartels in the last three years, does not prove that the war on drugs will never work.

Sorry.
Better luck next time.

Posted by: dubya1938 | May 26, 2010 2:38 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company