Remember the Alamo, but don't forget the salt shaker!

Amen brother.

In history a) doesn't happen - - there was an alleged drop after alcohol prohibition, but when an activity is illegal how do we really know? I vote for b) with taxes to reduce the debt and recover any government costs on health effects.

a) demand drops or b) laws are changed. Originally Posted by DTorrchia

Or we could just start rounding up people of Mexican descent. Right guys?

In history a) doesn't happen - - there was an alleged drop after alcohol prohibition, but when an activity is illegal how do we really know? I vote for b) with taxes to reduce the debt and recover any government costs on health effects. Originally Posted by cckid2006

I think it's reasonable to assume that if drugs were legalized, the amount of drug users would rise. When Alaska decriminalized marijuana, teen use jumped up double and the state went back to re-criminalizing it.
One has to assume that in the case of "hard" drugs, the same could be expected. Even if costs would go down for obtaining these drugs, if there's more users it would stand to reason that there will be more crime associated with that use. Many of those addicted to hard drugs can't hold a job. Where will they get the money to purchase these now legal and easy to buy hard drugs?

I can see perhaps legalizing Marijuana. It is no more addictive than cigarette smoking, it doesn't impair worse than alcohol and most users are still able to keep a job, but hard drugs? I'm not sure that the increase in users, the effects to our economy through loss of productivity, the increased strain on our health care system and the increase in crime would be offset by the tax revenue generated.

And you obviously haven't been reading anything I posted or that has been written on this subject in newspapers around the world.

You may think Pery was talking about one thing, but the world sure interpreted it as another. Do you believe he was proposing foreign policy or thumping his chest for the cameras? Could it have been another flippant comment that the media took the wrong way? That he's really thought through the idea of ending the war on drugs by putting our military in Mexico?

I guess you can interpret it any way that suits you.

You've got to do better than "you cant read." More insults.

Bu-uddy Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Actually I did read your links. If you read my posts you would know that I've stated over and over that I'm not crazy about Perry as a potential next President. To be honest, I don't see how ANYONE decides to run for President without having a basic idea what their own positions are and having done some basic research to back up those positions with facts. He is certainly not the first candidate to run off at the mouth without being prepared to back up his position. Having said that, it doesn't mean that there's not some kernels of truth to some of the things he talks about. It is painfully obvious that the Mexican government is loosing control of the country to the Drug Cartels. Should we allow the country to implode completely? What repercussions will that have for the United States? Do you really want a Narco-State as your next door neighbor?
So his assertion that perhaps there is a need/role for the U.S. Military in Mexico is not altogether wrong. He just needs to articulate that position better so that folks like you and the "mainstream media" won't misconstrue "working together with the Mexican Government" with "Let's invade Mexico!".

I don't want a narco state as my next door neighbor, but we've had one my entire life. And we've BEEN one for about 50, even in the days when a joint could get you 5-life.

I and the mainstream media (we are one in the same after all) aren't willing to sit tight while Rick Perry takes public speaking 101. (He's shooting for a C-). He's been saying shit like this since he first arrived on the scene in Austin. More importantly, he's advocated radical policy -- if you listen between the stumbles and stammers, that's what he's done. Maybe everybody who isn't "me-and-the-mainstream-media" needs to realize that this is WHO HE IS.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...1990-campaign/

I think it's reasonable to assume that if drugs were legalized, the amount of drug users would rise. Originally Posted by DTorrchia

That's not what has happened in The Netherlands or Portugal.

"quote D'Torch: the effects to our economy through loss of productivity, the increased strain on our health care system and the increase in crime would be offset by the tax revenue generated."

The worst effect on our economy isn't /hasn't been / won't be drugs... it's "OUTSOURCING" I'm pretty sure the folks that are out of work, and wishing deeply for a turn around, aren't blaming drugs.. I say Tax the USA companies that send out jobs around the world, the $ they quit putting into the USA economy by hiring elsewhere..
Hispanics/ immigrants certainly aren't the reason our jobs have "left the room".
With well over 1 TRILLION of corp.profits stashed in tax havens, NOT hiring local, using tax loopholes, it's about time we legislated these things out of existence.
"Oh, we're saving the American citizens $$ by "outsourcing".." It's a damn good thing, because they have to find some way to pay MULTI MILLION bonuses to the heads of these "American" companies.. Ya think Perry is smart enough to handle this? Sure, just like he's smart enough to make himself a Millionaire, several times over while in office..... earning.. $133,000 year.. Funny, I earn a little more than that and somehow I haven't been able to escalate to Millionaire status.. Hell, it's tough enough to just be a "Thousandaire"..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws7Zp41fByE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6a95...eature=related

That's not what has happened in The Netherlands or Portugal. Originally Posted by Booth

While overall drug use in the Netherlands did not rise significantly the New York Times reported this:
"But rates of use among young people increased when the number of coffee shops (selling marijuana) increased and the age of legal access was 16. Then these rates declined when the numbers of coffee shops was reduced and the age of legal access became 18."

This would be similar to what Alaska experienced when it tried de-criminalizing Marijuana and teen used jumped significantly.

I agree that locking people up for drug use doesn't work. It's a failed policy. The Portugal model is interesting and I'd like to see some states here in the U.S. give this a shot as a pilot program and see how it works out.
Something has to be done to take the profits and power away from the Cartels.

I wish we would look at the Portugal model.

How about THIS Portugese model?

He was referring to the same type of assistance our military has provided Columbia and other Latin American countries in their battle against the cartels. Intelligence, equipment, trainers, aircraft......in other words.....all of the stuff we're already providing on a Law Enforcement basis but ratcheting up the capabilities with military trainers and support. Originally Posted by DTorrchia

I don't know if anyone has previously mentioned this, but one reason why the Mexican cartels are so effective is because many of them were started by or are currently employing Mexican paramilitary soldiers we trained. So while I agree Perry wasn't talking about invading, I disagree with the idea that the training and assistance will necessarily be helpful in the long run. It seems likely that in the long run, our best intentions, may lead us to the wrong strategy.

I disagree with the idea that the training and assistance will necessarily be helpful in the long run. It seems likely that in the long run, our best intentions, may lead us to the wrong strategy. Originally Posted by Takeshi Miike

Afganistan and Bin Laden ring a bell

DON'T FORGET THE SHAH