7 ms·

"Illegal drug money is used to finance so much corruption and killing, that there seems to be little value in keeping them illegal, especially considering that

by rick888 15y ago

"Illegal drug money is used to finance so much corruption and killing, that there seems to be little value in keeping them illegal, especially considering that everyone who wants to take drugs still does. If certain drugs do have harmful effects then at least the effects will be mostly limited to the people who take them." Mexico is already corrupt without the drugs. Making them legal will give the cartels even more power because they will now be able to legally sell drugs in the US. They already have (and know how to run) multi-million dollar operations, you don't think they won't think about legally partnering up with companies in the US? "If certain drugs do have harmful effects then at least the effects will be mostly limited to the people who take them." Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I also don't feel like I should be forced to pay for your poor life choices. Regular Drug users should immediately get a huge increase in healthcare costs. We still have tons of people suing the cigarette companies because they cause cancer. I can only imagine how many lawsuits will be in our court systems if there is a company selling heroin.

marquis 15y ago
>Making them legal will give the cartels even more power because they will now be able to legally sell drugs in the US. Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped. Re: legalization and decriminalization: see recent studies in Portugal where addiction rates and criminal activity is plummeting.
- rick888 15y ago
  "Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped." It won't happen. Mexico's entire system is completely corrupt. Legalizing drugs won't fix the problem.
  - tmeasday 15y ago
    There are plenty of places in the world that are as corrupt or more corrupt than Mexico which don't have the same levels of violence.
    - rick888 15y ago
      They also don't have huge drug cartels running the place.
      - tmeasday 15y ago
        Well, exactly.
freemarketteddy 15y ago
you miss the point completely....with legalization there would be practically no difference between a mexican drug cartel and a mexican company that produces acetaminophen. When was the last time you read about an acetaminophen cartel(you can call it Cold Cartel to make it sound cooler!)
nate_meurer 15y ago
So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right?
- rick888 15y ago
  "So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right" The US isn't as corrupt as mexico. You don't have illegal alcohol cartels because the US has done its job at stamping them out years ago. The cartels also have had many more years to build up their multi-million dollar businesses.
  - nate_meurer 15y ago
    Ah, silly me, I thought that the end of prohibition was the main reason for the drop in bootlegging. Boy, what a goofy assumption that was! So, it's good to know that the cartels won't be "legally partnering up with companies in the US" due to the lower amount of corruption in the U.S. You evidently mis-spoke there, I guess. Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Perhaps you mean to imply that the cartels' current cash-rich positions would cushion them from the crash in the prices of their product that would result from the end of drug prohibition. Again, just like what happened in the 30's, right? Surely, those cartels would take their cash and quickly adapt to the new economic climate, perhaps diversifying into real estate and banking. Then we'd really be screwed! Please go on, rick888. I'm dying to hear more of your theories.
adamtmca 15y ago
Not to pile on, but: > Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I also don't feel like I should be forced to pay for your poor life choices. Regular Drug users should immediately get a huge increase in healthcare costs. First, the fact that drugs are illegal has done nothing to make them difficult to get - I think most university students would agree they are about 3 text messages away from any drug they might want. People don't avoid drugs because they are illegal, they avoid them because they are concerned about addiction & health effects. Second, addiction is a public health issue, not a law and order issue. Do you know how expensive it is to imprison someone vs sending them to a rehab program? Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper. > We still have tons of people suing the cigarette companies because they cause cancer. I can only imagine how many lawsuits will be in our court systems if there is a company selling heroin. I won't argue the premise but surely you would agree that a backed up court system beats DEA agents getting their heads blown off on a regular basis.
- rick888 15y ago
  "Second, addiction is a public health issue, not a law and order issue. Do you know how expensive it is to imprison someone vs sending them to a rehab program? Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper" I looked, and I'm not surprised by the results: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Portugals-Great-Drug-Experiment http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Po... "Today, more users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse." "personal drug use over the course of their lifetime has gone up about 40 to 50 percent in the last decade." Drug use is actually up...because there is no legal risk. More from the article: "They would meet with the person who had been picked up in possession of whatever drug it was and discuss the issue. These CDTs would then hand down various, sort of, not punishments, but treatments. Some people would, you know, be asked to enter counseling. Some people would be banned from, say, going to raves, if that's where they were doing their drugs; or banned from attending certain concerts or bars, if that's where they were doing drugs. And, you know, this is very controversial, even in Portugal, as you can imagine." Do you really want the government telling you you can't go to a concert or rave? I would really like to see the long-term numbers for Portugal. I predict they will be bankrupt within 15 years. "I won't argue the premise but surely you would agree that a backed up court system beats DEA agents getting their heads blown off on a regular basis" They still get their heads blown off for things like Vicodin (a legal form of heroin), so how will legalizing all drugs be any different? "Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper."
evilduck 15y ago
Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them. Heroin and meth could be legal and I wouldn't do those either. Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all and I really just don't see a huge influx of hard drug users, the people who want to experiment with them already do so regardless of legality, health effects or cost. Further, legalization and taxation should cover the additional medical costs, the price of each pack of cigarettes is currently about 56% tax revenue and distilled spirits are around 50%. Sin/vice taxes already fund dozens of other things besides adult health care costs, if anything I would expect them to be exploited as a revenue generating machine that politicians could gouge for cash since it's so easy to demonize.
- rick888 15y ago
  "I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them" Many people do because they are easily available in pretty much any 7-11 and gas station. "Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all" Then there will still be a black market and it still won't solve the issue at hand. " the people who want to experiment with them already do so regardless of legality, health effects or cost" Many people don't experiment because they don't know where to get them. Legalizing them also implies that they are okay (if it's legal..it has to be okay..right?) "Sin/vice taxes already fund dozens of other things besides adult health care costs, if anything I would expect them to be exploited as a revenue generating machine that politicians could gouge for cash since it's so easy to demonize" I would just rather not have the increase strain on our already over-taxes medical system. Everyone that's pro-drug wants the government out of their lives, yet they are fine with increased taxes and regulations to support more and more social programs. Government taxation and regulation = control.
  - evilduck 15y ago
    Logical fallacies and red herrings....you've put them everywhere....my head hurts.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Ending prohibition would allow the drug supply chain to operate openly, which would tend to result in supply migrating away from undesirable sources. Indeed, the end of alcohol prohibition in the US brought a massive curtailing of the operations of bootleggers in the US. Today the monetary support of violent gangs by way of alcohol bootlegging revenues is essentially non-existent. As far as government-run health care serving as a lever to control individual behavior, that sounds like a good reason to avoid government-run health care. When the state tries to regulate individual happiness or well being the result is invariably tragedy and disaster. In a free society the government serves society. When society serves government you have tyranny.

by rick888 15y ago

marquis 15y ago

>Making them legal will give the cartels even more power because they will now be able to legally sell drugs in the US. Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped. Re: legalization and decriminalization: see recent studies in Portugal where addiction rates and criminal activity is plummeting.

rick888 15y ago
"Does Anheuser-Busch engage in lethal turf warfare in the manner of Al Capone? Yes, I agree that the cartels would move into legal territory but quite frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time in Mexico, the country would be happy to see the terror gone, jobs created and the tax benefits reaped." It won't happen. Mexico's entire system is completely corrupt. Legalizing drugs won't fix the problem.
- tmeasday 15y ago
  There are plenty of places in the world that are as corrupt or more corrupt than Mexico which don't have the same levels of violence.
  - rick888 15y ago
    They also don't have huge drug cartels running the place.
    - tmeasday 15y ago
      Well, exactly.

freemarketteddy 15y ago

you miss the point completely....with legalization there would be practically no difference between a mexican drug cartel and a mexican company that produces acetaminophen. When was the last time you read about an acetaminophen cartel(you can call it Cold Cartel to make it sound cooler!)

nate_meurer 15y ago

So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right?

rick888 15y ago
"So there must be some really enormous cartels engaged in alcohol bootlegging, and "legally partnering up with companies in the US" in the process. Right" The US isn't as corrupt as mexico. You don't have illegal alcohol cartels because the US has done its job at stamping them out years ago. The cartels also have had many more years to build up their multi-million dollar businesses.
- nate_meurer 15y ago
  Ah, silly me, I thought that the end of prohibition was the main reason for the drop in bootlegging. Boy, what a goofy assumption that was! So, it's good to know that the cartels won't be "legally partnering up with companies in the US" due to the lower amount of corruption in the U.S. You evidently mis-spoke there, I guess. Not sure what your last sentence is supposed to mean. Perhaps you mean to imply that the cartels' current cash-rich positions would cushion them from the crash in the prices of their product that would result from the end of drug prohibition. Again, just like what happened in the 30's, right? Surely, those cartels would take their cash and quickly adapt to the new economic climate, perhaps diversifying into real estate and banking. Then we'd really be screwed! Please go on, rick888. I'm dying to hear more of your theories.

adamtmca 15y ago

Not to pile on, but: > Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I also don't feel like I should be forced to pay for your poor life choices. Regular Drug users should immediately get a huge increase in healthcare costs. First, the fact that drugs are illegal has done nothing to make them difficult to get - I think most university students would agree they are about 3 text messages away from any drug they might want. People don't avoid drugs because they are illegal, they avoid them because they are concerned about addiction & health effects. Second, addiction is a public health issue, not a law and order issue. Do you know how expensive it is to imprison someone vs sending them to a rehab program? Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper. > We still have tons of people suing the cigarette companies because they cause cancer. I can only imagine how many lawsuits will be in our court systems if there is a company selling heroin. I won't argue the premise but surely you would agree that a backed up court system beats DEA agents getting their heads blown off on a regular basis.

rick888 15y ago
"Second, addiction is a public health issue, not a law and order issue. Do you know how expensive it is to imprison someone vs sending them to a rehab program? Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper" I looked, and I'm not surprised by the results: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Portugals-Great-Drug-Experiment http://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Po... "Today, more users are in rehab, but drug use is on the rise, and reporter Keith O'Brien says the policy has made the problem worse." "personal drug use over the course of their lifetime has gone up about 40 to 50 percent in the last decade." Drug use is actually up...because there is no legal risk. More from the article: "They would meet with the person who had been picked up in possession of whatever drug it was and discuss the issue. These CDTs would then hand down various, sort of, not punishments, but treatments. Some people would, you know, be asked to enter counseling. Some people would be banned from, say, going to raves, if that's where they were doing their drugs; or banned from attending certain concerts or bars, if that's where they were doing drugs. And, you know, this is very controversial, even in Portugal, as you can imagine." Do you really want the government telling you you can't go to a concert or rave? I would really like to see the long-term numbers for Portugal. I predict they will be bankrupt within 15 years. "I won't argue the premise but surely you would agree that a backed up court system beats DEA agents getting their heads blown off on a regular basis" They still get their heads blown off for things like Vicodin (a legal form of heroin), so how will legalizing all drugs be any different? "Take a look at Portugal - treating addiction like the health issue it is works and it's cheaper."

evilduck 15y ago

Many people want government-run health care in the US. Legalizing illegal drugs will add to the already large amount of addicts. Do we really want more addicts in our hospitals? I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them. Heroin and meth could be legal and I wouldn't do those either. Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all and I really just don't see a huge influx of hard drug users, the people who want to experiment with them already do so regardless of legality, health effects or cost. Further, legalization and taxation should cover the additional medical costs, the price of each pack of cigarettes is currently about 56% tax revenue and distilled spirits are around 50%. Sin/vice taxes already fund dozens of other things besides adult health care costs, if anything I would expect them to be exploited as a revenue generating machine that politicians could gouge for cash since it's so easy to demonize.

rick888 15y ago
"I really don't see this as the most likely scenario. Why would it follow that legalization of a drug would lead to more addicts? Cigarettes are legal and addictive and I don't smoke them" Many people do because they are easily available in pretty much any 7-11 and gas station. "Legal doesn't imply uncontrolled and unfettered access by all" Then there will still be a black market and it still won't solve the issue at hand. " the people who want to experiment with them already do so regardless of legality, health effects or cost" Many people don't experiment because they don't know where to get them. Legalizing them also implies that they are okay (if it's legal..it has to be okay..right?) "Sin/vice taxes already fund dozens of other things besides adult health care costs, if anything I would expect them to be exploited as a revenue generating machine that politicians could gouge for cash since it's so easy to demonize" I would just rather not have the increase strain on our already over-taxes medical system. Everyone that's pro-drug wants the government out of their lives, yet they are fine with increased taxes and regulations to support more and more social programs. Government taxation and regulation = control.
- evilduck 15y ago
  Logical fallacies and red herrings....you've put them everywhere....my head hurts.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

Ending prohibition would allow the drug supply chain to operate openly, which would tend to result in supply migrating away from undesirable sources. Indeed, the end of alcohol prohibition in the US brought a massive curtailing of the operations of bootleggers in the US. Today the monetary support of violent gangs by way of alcohol bootlegging revenues is essentially non-existent. As far as government-run health care serving as a lever to control individual behavior, that sounds like a good reason to avoid government-run health care. When the state tries to regulate individual happiness or well being the result is invariably tragedy and disaster. In a free society the government serves society. When society serves government you have tyranny.