America's Third War: Texas Strikes Back

[estesbob]

I see no sarcasm. It was said that during Prohibition there were three factions that wanted to keep alcohol illegal - preachers in religious groups that were against alcohol, bootleggers, and “Prohibition agents.” All would have lost business from legalization. So, your remark isn’t all that off the mark.

I’ve never used pot in my life, I drink the usual alcoholic beverages, but have never been drunk in my 68 years, and I’m for the legalization of both!

Rich that is the third time this week you and I have agreed on something-one of us must be getting smarter in our old age…

 

[kimmielittle]

**HOOAH! **You’re too cool you got it going on.

**HOOAH!

Actually, it would be a fallacy in logic circular reasoning ] to say other administrations failed. It’s this administration that promised “change”. **

 

[kimmielittle]

Of course it’s irresponsible. Didn’t I say the border’s been ignored by Washington for years? Both Bush administrations, Clinton’s, and now Obama’s.

I know, I was joking with you

 

[AcolyteLector]

As long as there’s dealers, there will be buyers. The fault is on both sides.
It’s wrong to deal in drugs, a Satanic lure. That there’s buyers doesn’t exonerate the illicit drug scene.

Don’t tell me our third graders asked drug dealers to come on their campuses and lure tots onto drugs.

Poverty is no excuse to grow, manufacture, transport and deal drugs, which are slow death. There’s billions of people on this planet who are poor and have Christ-like endurance of gross poverty, but don’t grow, transport nor deal drugs to break the poverty cycle. So, the growers, transporters and dealers of drugs can be just as gutless as the buyers.

To clarify a few errors you’ve made in your argument:

(1) The Mexican cartels are not dealers. They’re suppliers.

The dealers are more often than not users themselves. In both cases, we’re dealing with Americans consuming, and dealing on a local scale.

(2) True, but I don’t think anyone is trying to justify the cartels’ existence simply by poverty. Not yet, anyway.

The growers, transporters, and wholesalers are gutless, but their existence necessitates local dealers and consumers north of the border. This is an American problem, with an American solution.

 

[agnes_therese]

I know, I was joking with you

Hon, here in Texas, we tend not to recognize jokes on that subject.

Peace.

 

[cthulhubryan]

I we want to send a message that we are serious we should announce the creation of a new war game with the Mexican government involving “simulated” cavalry landings at Vera Cruz. We should call it Task Force Winfield Scott.

 

[gamewell45]

The best solution would be to just legalize drugs. The current war on drugs has caused a greater erosion of our civil rights than anything else in the last 50 years. In addition it has spawned a gangster culture that has resulted in a third of African-American men being in prison. We could spend a fraction of the money we spend on the war on drugs on treatment and we would all be better off. I say this, by the way, as recovering alcoholic that hasn’t had a drink 25 years and never did drugs as Budweiser is cheaper messed up me up just as good as drugs would.

estesbob, we are often at opposite ends of the spectrum, but this time I have to agree with you; I think its a great idea. Not only will it help to put the drug lords out of business, as you mentioned, we’d save money on the war on drugs and at the same time collect sales tax on it helping the economy. Hooch is certainly no worse then alcohol. Its a win-win for America.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

HOOAH!

**Actually, it would be a fallacy in logic circular reasoning ] to say other administrations failed. It’s this administration that promised “change”. **

 

[colmywaykurtz]

I have no doubt whatever that the Mexican government is getting assistance from at least the U.S. D.E.A., particularly in the way of intelligence, and training. Other countries may be involved as well.

They cannot have American police and military operating openly in their country any more than we would want Mexican police and soldiers operating in ours.

Yes, that would turn them ALL against us, and transform it into a naked war of aggression by us.

 

[Darryl1958]

e… Not only will it help to put the drug lords out of business, as you mentioned, we’d save money on the war on drugs and at the same time collect sales tax on it helping the economy. Hooch is certainly no worse then alcohol. Its a win-win for America.

What evidence is there that making drugs legal would put the drug cartels out of business?
Ending prohibition certainly did not put the Mafias out of business. They merely divested into their other schemes.

Likewise, for the cartels, there are already many other schemes that they are involved with, not the least of which is human smuggling, trafficking of human flesh, not to mention the cocaine and hard drug trade that they are already heavily involved with.

What evidence lies behind the conjecture that legalizing marijuana would put the cartels out of business?

Certainly the government now is heavily involved in profits from the trafficking of alcohol and tobacco. Given the health and social costs involved in these legal drug activities, especially now that health care is becoming socialized in America, there is ample evidence that these activities cost more than the money that they take in.

This is not to even account for the productivity cost involved to businesses, which are already huge for alcohol and drugs of all types.

Moreover, with alcohol, at least there is a socializing aspect to imbibing in these kind of spirits in our culture. Many are capable of having a drink of two, without any serious intoxicating effects. Marijuana and hard drugs on the other hand, are imbibed in solely for the intoxicating effects. There can be no socially appropriate level of drug to put in the needle, or no snorts of cocaine or hits of crack that could ever count as a ‘social’ glass or two.

It is purely about getting stoned and intoxicated when it comes to these drugs, marijuana included. You are either stoned, or you need another hit from the bong.

Bottom line is, like abortion, legalization leads to social acceptance, and social
acceptance leads to a culture that values getting stoned for the sake of getting stoned.
Indeed, many are already there. That is why the Church speaks against both.

Legalization will only add to the numbers who are stoned out of their minds, and will in now way solve the southern border. It is unsubstantiated conjecture and wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

 

[gamewell45]

What evidence is there that making drugs legal would put the drug cartels out of business?
Ending prohibition certainly did not put the Mafias out of business. They merely divested into their other schemes.

Likewise, for the cartels, there are already many other schemes that they are involved with, not the least of which is human smuggling, trafficking of human flesh, not to mention the cocaine and hard drug trade that they are already heavily involved with.

What evidence lies behind the conjecture that legalizing marijuana would put the cartels out of business?

Certainly the government now is heavily involved in profits from the trafficking of alcohol and tobacco. Given the health and social costs involved in these legal drug activities, especially now that health care is becoming socialized in America, there is ample evidence that these activities cost more than the money that they take in.

This is not to even account for the productivity cost involved to businesses, which are already huge for alcohol and drugs of all types.

Moreover, with alcohol, at least there is a socializing aspect to imbibing in these kind of spirits in our culture. Many are capable of having a drink of two, without any serious intoxicating effects. Marijuana and hard drugs on the other hand, are imbibed in solely for the intoxicating effects. There can be no socially appropriate level of drug to put in the needle, or no snorts of cocaine or hits of crack that could ever count as a ‘social’ glass or two.

It is purely about getting stoned and intoxicated when it comes to these drugs, marijuana included. You are either stoned, or you need another hit from the bong.

Bottom line is, like abortion, legalization leads to social acceptance, and social
acceptance leads to a culture that values getting stoned for the sake of getting stoned.
Indeed, many are already there. That is why the Church speaks against both.

Legalization will only add to the numbers who are stoned out of their minds, and will in now way solve the southern border. It is unsubstantiated conjecture and wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

Darryl, the key word here is ’help". I didnt’ say it "would" put them out of business; obviously enforcement would have to continue but not at the level we are currently conducting and spending a small fortune on.

 

[Darryl1958]

Darryl, the key word here is ’help". I didnt’ say it "would" put them out of business; obviously enforcement would have to continue but not at the level we are currently conducting and spending a small fortune on.

Either way, I think I answered you fairly and honestly.

I have serious reservations that this would do much to help the border situation, which I have expressed.

And from what I am hearing from Texans and Arizonans on these forums is that not nearly enough is being done to control a situation that is fast spiralling out of control.

It is not a matter of spending much more, or legalizing drugs, or too many smug Americans with coke spoons up their gringo noses.

It is a matter of having the political will to actually seal up the Mexican border. If the federal government can’t or won’t then apparently the state governments feel that they must.

Not a good situation at all, I don’ t think.

 

[rodomonte]

Yes. If there were no demand, there’d be no supply, and if there were not great demand, then the cartels wouldn’t be doing big business from it.

Two groups have blood on their hands. The US addicts who consume billions of dollars of illegal drugs from south of the border, and US politicians who refuse to seal the border to prevent these drugs from entering the US. Please do not repeat the big lie that nothing can be done to eliminate illegal immigration or drug smuggling. It is just a matter of having the political will.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Moreover, with alcohol, at least there is a socializing aspect to imbibing in these kind of spirits in our culture. Many are capable of having a drink of two, without any serious intoxicating effects. Marijuana and hard drugs on the other hand, are imbibed in solely for the intoxicating effects.

Marijuana is not the same as cocaine. It is non-addictive, and it is also taken as a socializing drug similarly to alcohol.

There can be no socially appropriate level of drug to put in the needle, or no snorts of cocaine or hits of crack that could ever count as a ‘social’ glass or two.

True.

It is purely about getting stoned and intoxicated when it comes to these drugs, marijuana included. You are either stoned, or you need another hit from the bong.

I know a number of people who are social marijuana users. There are some, as you say, who use it to excess, just as there are those who get drunk on alcohol. I focus not on the extremes of either use.

That is why the Church speaks against both.

Against alcohol? I don’t think the Church has made any statements about marijuana.

Legalization will only add to the numbers who are stoned out of their minds,

Just as the end of Prohibition added to the numbers who get sh*t-faced drunk.

It is unsubstantiated conjecture and wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

As is the nonsense about all pot-smokers having no purpose but to get higher and higher. I favor the recreational use of alcohol and of marijuana. I have no beef with enforcing laws against hard drugs.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Two groups have blood on their hands. The US addicts who consume billions of dollars of illegal drugs from south of the border.

By definition, if one is addicted to a substance, he or she has diminished responsibility regarding its use. Thus they far more need assistance to break their habit than to be condemned for “blood on their hands.”

 

[Darryl1958]

Against alcohol? I don’t think the Church has made any statements about marijuana.

The context of the quote was not alcohol but legalisation of abortion, and now illicit drugs.
As per teaching:

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Just as the end of Prohibition added to the numbers who get sh*t-faced drunk.

probably.
Not really a good thing either.

Quote:
It is unsubstantiated conjecture and wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

As is the nonsense about all pot-smokers having no purpose but to get higher and higher.

This has nothing to do with what I or anyone else in this thread has said. Nowhere was that pot smokers have no purpose but to get higher and higher.
But it ought to be noted there is no amount that can be taken without intoxication occurring. There is no such thing as a social puff with a tiny little buzz.

I favor the recreational use of alcohol and of marijuana. I have no beef with enforcing laws against hard drugs

This is nice, but beside the point.
My challenge was to note that there is absolutely no proof that legalizing any illicit drug will make the cartels any less of a threat. It is conjecture to state otherwise.

 

[donsnow]

To clarify a few errors you’ve made in your argument:

(1) The Mexican cartels are not dealers. They’re suppliers.

The dealers are more often than not users themselves. In both cases, we’re dealing with Americans consuming, and dealing on a local scale.

(2) True, but I don’t think anyone is trying to justify the cartels’ existence simply by poverty. Not yet, anyway.

The growers, transporters, and wholesalers are gutless, but their existence necessitates local dealers and consumers north of the border. This is an American problem, with an American solution.

I’m not buying into your guilt trip. As long as you include all the Americas when you claim an “American Problem”, I’ll go along with you; because the cartels are a Mexican, Central American and South American problem. Our drug buyers don’t go out and kill people if they don’t buy. Your suppliers do.