WellDressed Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Watch the movie "Cocaine Cowboys" on SHO or HBO; the money flow/laundering in Miami during the 80's tells all. IIRC, the money in the fed reserve in Miami was double what all of the other fed rsv. banks had combined!!!! It all happened right under my nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Watch the movie "Cocaine Cowboys" on SHO or HBO; the money flow/laundring in Miami during the 80's tells all. IIRC, the money in the fed reserve in Miami was double what all of the aother fed rsv. banks combined!!!! All right under my nose. Good flick, I rented it about a year ago. You can watch it on Youtube or at least you used to able to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Does anyone believe the Republicans would EVER allow certain drugs to be legal? Republicans are FAR more antagonistic toward decriminalization. It's a bread-and-butter "crime" issue that will never change unless a very prominent Republican has a "Nixon goes to China" moment. Sure you can call Democrats pussies for not standing up for what they believe but its not like decriminalization would ever pass without Republican support. There's plenty of Pro War on Drugs Democrats out there too Going to take more than just a "very prominent Republican" as you put it. It's going to take several prominent and not so prominent Republicans and Democrats with enough balls to take a stand and risk losing their seat But until that happens we'll just have change and mavericks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellDressed Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Good flick, I rented it about a year ago. You can watch it on Youtube or at least you used to able to. I would like to see the charcter "Max Mermelstein" that John Roberts was talking about. There is a movie in the works for the infamous head of the Medellín Cartel, Pablo Escobar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Here is where we both show that IANAL. However, I think it'd be possible to make the purchase of it legal, but the distribution point illegal (supplying it is illegal, using it and buying small quantities is not). Just Marijuana alone would save the country billions, and would be a good step to take. I also wouldn't oppose the legalization of shrooms or ecstasy either. How is that going to do anything to stop drug use? It's already illegal to sell marijuana. And as you've pointed out, that hasn't done anything to stop people from using. If all you want to do is lower the crime rate, then yeah, change the laws and make more stuff legal. If you want to stop people from using the drugs that are currently illegal, how do you do that? If you are really interested in saving this country from bankruptcy, there are much bigger expenditures out there that would actually get the job done. The savings from eliminating the war on drugs won't do anything to help this country financially in the long run. If you're just interested in being able to smoke weed without fear of getting in trouble, keep bashing the useless war on drugs. But don't pretend that it's going to have any financial positives on this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Here is where we both show that IANAL. Heheheheheheh, hey Beavis. He said.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 How is that going to do anything to stop drug use? It's already illegal to sell marijuana. And as you've pointed out, that hasn't done anything to stop people from using.If all you want to do is lower the crime rate, then yeah, change the laws and make more stuff legal. If you want to stop people from using the drugs that are currently illegal, how do you do that? If you are really interested in saving this country from bankruptcy, there are much bigger expenditures out there that would actually get the job done. The savings from eliminating the war on drugs won't do anything to help this country financially in the long run. If you're just interested in being able to smoke weed without fear of getting in trouble, keep bashing the useless war on drugs. But don't pretend that it's going to have any financial positives on this country. Might want to read threads before posting. (and lol @ the notion that cutting spending by 6-9 billion dollars a year isn't a worthy goal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berndogg Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 How is that going to do anything to stop drug use? It's already illegal to sell marijuana. And as you've pointed out, that hasn't done anything to stop people from using. If all you want to do is lower the crime rate, then yeah, change the laws and make more stuff legal. If you want to stop people from using the drugs that are currently illegal, how do you do that? If you are really interested in saving this country from bankruptcy, there are much bigger expenditures out there that would actually get the job done. The savings from eliminating the war on drugs won't do anything to help this country financially in the long run. If you're just interested in being able to smoke weed without fear of getting in trouble, keep bashing the useless war on drugs. But don't pretend that it's going to have any financial positives on this country. It's not, but nothing is, so why waste money trying, when not only can we not stop it, we can't even lower use. Once again, I thought we already learned this lesson during prohibition On a side note, I don't think its even in the interest of americans to stop it. If you read the article, about half of americans already use or have used, and thats just the ones who admitted to it, and thats with it being illegal. Getting people to stop using marijuana isn't what the majority people want, so in a democracy, the government shouldn't be trying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 How is that going to do anything to stop drug use? It's already illegal to sell marijuana. And as you've pointed out, that hasn't done anything to stop people from using. If all you want to do is lower the crime rate, then yeah, change the laws and make more stuff legal. If you want to stop people from using the drugs that are currently illegal, how do you do that? If you are really interested in saving this country from bankruptcy, there are much bigger expenditures out there that would actually get the job done. The savings from eliminating the war on drugs won't do anything to help this country financially in the long run. If you're just interested in being able to smoke weed without fear of getting in trouble, keep bashing the useless war on drugs. But don't pretend that it's going to have any financial positives on this country. Actually, decriminalizing and possibly legalizing drugs (at least some of them) will wipe out the black market for them and immediately help improve urban ghettos. No black market for drugs = gotta find something else to do to earn a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Might want to read threads before posting. (and lol @ the notion that cutting spending by 6-9 billion dollars a year isn't a worthy goal) Let's see smartass. So far in this thread, you're saying: The war on drugs doesn't work It's costing the country billions and increasing the size of government Some drugs should be legal Instead of legalizing all drugs, we should only go after the supplier, not the small time user I'm saying that if the intent of the people of this country is to stop drug use, how would you suggest doing it. We are already going after the suppliers, and as you've so intelligently pointed out, that's not working. So what's your amazing answer to this problem? If the war on drugs is a failure, then how is anything you've said so far gonna make things better? But instead of answering that, just use another impressively witty comment that deflects the fact that you have no idea how to actually make things better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 It's not, but nothing is, so why waste money trying, when not only can we not stop it, we can't even lower use. Once again, I thought we already learned this lesson during prohibition On a side note, I don't think its even in the interest of americans to stop it. If you read the article, about half of americans already use or have used, and thats just the ones who admitted to it, and thats with it being illegal. Getting people to stop using marijuana isn't what the majority people want, so in a democracy, the government shouldn't be trying Well crap. We haven't been able to stop murders or thefts since they were made illegal, so why keep trying? Dang, if we just got rid of all law enforcement, since that doesn't keep people from breaking laws, think of how much money we'd save. How the hell can you possibly know whether the majority of Americans want pot to be legal or illegal? You also realize you don't live in a democracy right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Let's see smartass. So far in this thread, you're saying: The war on drugs doesn't work It's costing the country billions and increasing the size of government Some drugs should be legal Instead of legalizing all drugs, we should only go after the supplier, not the small time user I'm saying that if the intent of the people of this country is to stop drug use, how would you suggest doing it. We are already going after the suppliers, and as you've so intelligently pointed out, that's not working. So what's your amazing answer to this problem? If the war on drugs is a failure, then how is anything you've said so far gonna make things better? But instead of answering that, just use another impressively witty comment that deflects the fact that you have no idea how to actually make things better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Witty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 (and lol @ the notion that cutting spending by 6-9 billion dollars a year isn't a worthy goal) lol @ reading comprehension I didn't say it wasn't a worthy goal. I said it would do nothing to pull this country out of bankruptcy in the long run. You're pretty good at setting up strawmen and knocking then down. I mean dang, you really tore into that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Well crap. We haven't been able to stop murders or thefts since they were made illegal, so why keep trying? Dang, if we just got rid of all law enforcement, since that doesn't keep people from breaking laws, think of how much money we'd save. How the hell can you possibly know whether the majority of Americans want pot to be legal or illegal? Number one Murdering and stealing should not be grouped with smoking weed. They are different types of crimes. Thats like comparing driving 5 miles over the speed limit to a vehicular homicide. Also I don't think you can know what a majority of americans want but I do believe that most people don't care if their neighbor smokes a little in the privacy of there own home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 I still dont understand why legalizing drugs is thought of as liberal. A true conservative could be tough on crime (crime meaning people hurting other people), but would think that the government shouldnt have conrol over what people do to their own bodies. Is there anything that says big government more than the government telling you what you do and dont have permission to put into your own body. You may simply be equating "liberal" with "big government" instead of "civil liberties." (?) "Conservatives" should be more civil libertarian (abortion and censorship come to mind) but those lines are blurred by so-called "moral issues." On the other spectrum I don't know why more liberals are not sensitive to the right to own guns -- but then again, if the Scalia court was truly "conservative" and had strict interpretation of the Constitution they would not have ruled that gun ownership a "right." Instead they simply lost all credibility that they are 'strict constructionists' - as if that had any meaning to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 There's plenty of Pro War on Drugs Democrats out there too Going to take more than just a "very prominent Republican" as you put it. It's going to take several prominent and not so prominent Republicans and Democrats with enough balls to take a stand and risk losing their seat But until that happens we'll just have change and mavericks Why should politicians "risk losing their seats" over an issue their constituents don't seem to care about? Fact is the Right controls this debate and until they open a crack in the platform nothing will change. That's not a stab at Republicans it's just the reality. Accusations of "weakness" almost always win out over "try something new." (some would argue a fight between "change" and conservative thinking ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Well crap. We haven't been able to stop murders or thefts since they were made illegal, so why keep trying? Dang, if we just got rid of all law enforcement, since that doesn't keep people from breaking laws, think of how much money we'd save. How the hell can you possibly know whether the majority of Americans want pot to be legal or illegal? You also realize you don't live in a democracy right? Well, murders and theft are two crimes which have victims. And according to the statistics, far fewer people are busted and encarcerated for committing them. That means we're essentially spending more money, VAST ammounts of money, to prevent people from causing harm to themselves. Now, in response to Cincy's "running me into the guard-rail comment," I'm going to chalk it up to non-smoker ignorance. That's not the kind of driving behavior caused by smoking. Do the research, read the studies, mary jane does NOT impair driving. But alcohol does. Yet I don't see you fighting a crusade for all the VICTIMS of drunk driving accidents. In response to whomever suggested that legalization would only fuel the black market by encouraging buyers to find "stronger" doses: no. That would not happen. To my knowledge we still live in a capitalist society where competition breeds quality improvments. Now, if you want to make the argument that legal drugs would be more dangerous, that's something I'd entertain. Look how many chemicals are pumped into cigarettes. Personally, I would rather pot be kept illegal for this purpose alone. But, when you look at the ridiculous spending, and the uphill battle that policing it has become, it simply doesn't make sense. Regarding the harder drugs: street heroine/crack/cocaine/and meth have the "street" pre-fix for a reason. These drugs are more harmful to those who use them than the drugs would be if they were produced and sold in a regulated market. The bottomline: drugs will be kept illegal because in spite of the ludicrous spending our government shells out to make it look like they're fighting to eradicate them, it pales in comparison to the money they're receiving on the backside through illegal activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Cell phones Cough Medicine Alcohol These are all legal things that impair driving more then MJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Number one Murdering and stealing should not be grouped with smoking weed. They are different types of crimes. Thats like comparing driving 5 miles over the speed limit to a vehicular homicide. Also I don't think you can know what a majority of americans want but I do believe that most people don't care if their neighbor smokes a little in the privacy of there own home. It's not an argument of that crime is worse, so it has no bearing on this crime. The point is, that no law enforcement prevents actions. Law enforcement only works after the crime. It's a bogus argument to say the law fails when that's not what it's supposed to do. Laws don't make you do the right things. They let you know what the wrong things to do are. The laws in this country set standards of behavior for the society. Law enforcement punishes those who fail to live up to those standards. What part of that equation makes people live up to those standards? The question is, that if we don't want people using those drugs as a standard in our society then what do we do to stop it? How about instead of lowering our standards (making drugs legal), we work on getting people to live up to those standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts