TexasCHLforum.com

The violence in Mexico is at the level of full scale war. It also seems the rules have changed and the BG's are directly confronting security contractors. In addition to the Felix Batista kidnapping in December, last week in Cancun, a retired General was tortured and assasinated along with his aide and bodyguard less than 24 hours after taking a job as a security consultant for the governor.

So far, this only seems to be getting lip service from our press (with few exceptions like Fox and talk radio). Eventually it will spill over the border and cause the US to start paying more attention. Having visited El Paso several times, this is downright scarry and I can't imagine living next to a community that had 1,600 murders in 2008. That would be like having Ramadi as a suburb of Houston. A couple examples:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_11641299" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6252174.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Questions:

* If the drugs were legal in the US, would I partake? Absolutely not!
* Would anyone else start using because the drugs were available at Wal-Mart, etc? Probably not.
* Would the drug related crimes decrease to being nearly nonexistant if the substances were legally available? Probably yes.

Outlawing the substance/s didn't work with Prohibition 70 some odd years ago and it isn't working with illicit drugs today. Those who are going to drink will drink and those who are going to snort, smoke or shoot up will also find a way.

Thoughts?

I've said the same thing for years. Make it legal, just double or triple the punishment for crimes committed while under the influence.

Another thing, hot many people get stoned and start fights and cause wrecks? How many people get drunk and start fights and cause wrecks?

Oldgringo wrote:Questions:

* If the drugs were legal in the US, would I partake? Absolutely not!
* Would anyone else start using because the drugs were available at Wal-Mart, etc? Probably not.
* Would the drug related crimes decrease to being nearly nonexistant if the substances were legally available? Probably yes.

Outlawing the substance/s didn't work with Prohibition 70 some odd years ago and it isn't working with illicit drugs today. Those who are going to drink will drink and those who are going to snort, smoke or shoot up will also find a way.

Thoughts?

Quite a number of folks who have fought the drug wars for many years have made some or all of the following observations:

1. No one who wants to use drugs has any trouble finding them, despite the fact most of them must be imported, they've been illegal for a century or so, and we've spent trillions of dollars and untold effort on stopping the flow. Legalizing them wouldn't make them any more available than they already are - it would simply decrease the prices.

2. Very few folks who don't use drugs would do anything different if drugs were legalized. They are making a lifestyle choice, not reacting to legal constraints.

3. Crimes are committed, drug gang wars are fought, and governments are corrupted over the huge amounts of money drugs bring solely because of their illegal status. If you take away the "contraband premium", you're left with some pretty cheap substances whose profits wouldnt' be worth committing crimes or fighting over.

4. If the flow of money which only exists because of the illegal status of prohibited drugs was eliminated, the Mexican narcowars and a good portion of our domestic gang activity would settle down in a hurry.

These observations may be somewhat counterintuitive to folks who haven't been deeply involved in drug law enforcement, but they're now being seriously put forward by senior drug enforcement officers, US attorneys, judges, and others who know that what we've been doing doesn't work and have given much thought to other solutions.

Insanity has been defined as "doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result." Since we've pretty much exhausted the current strategy of enforcing our way out of the problem while seriously eroding constitutional protections and individual rights in the process, and still ended up with a bigger problem than we started with, it may be time to begin giving some of these ideas a critical look.

It is interesting how the lesson of "prohibition doesn't work" has to be learned over and over again. Its not working for drugs, it didn't work for alcohol, it doesn't work for firearms. Although, some people don't want to learn the lesson because for them its not about public safety, but control.

Excaliber wrote:
Quite a number of folks who have fought the drug wars for many years have made some or all of the following observations:

1. No one who wants to use drugs has any trouble finding them, despite the fact most of them must be imported, they've been illegal for a century or so, and we've spent trillions of dollars and untold effort on stopping the flow. Legalizing them wouldn't make them any more available than they already are - it would simply decrease the prices.

2. Very few folks who don't use drugs would do anything different if drugs were legalized. They are making a lifestyle choice, not reacting to legal constraints.

3. Crimes are committed, drug gang wars are fought, and governments are corrupted over the huge amounts of money drugs bring solely because of their illegal status. If you take away the "contraband premium", you're left with some pretty cheap substances whose profits wouldnt' be worth committing crimes or fighting over.

4. If the flow of money which only exists because of the illegal status of prohibited drugs was eliminated, the Mexican narcowars and a good portion of our domestic gang activity would settle down in a hurry.

These observations may be somewhat counterintuitive to folks who haven't been deeply involved in drug law enforcement, but they're now being seriously put forward by senior drug enforcement officers, US attorneys, judges, and others who know that what we've been doing doesn't work and have given much thought to other solutions.

Insanity has been defined as "doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result." Since we've pretty much exhausted the current strategy of enforcing our way out of the problem while seriously eroding constitutional protections and individual rights in the process, and still ended up with a bigger problem than we started with, it may be time to begin giving some of these ideas a critical look.

A few states have made steps toward decriminalization of marijuana. Either by legalizing medical use or decreasing penalties for modest amounts. Like CHL programs there hasn't been any of the projected blood in the streets. but midnite sales at Taco Belle have shown increases.

If these drugs were legalized, crime in general should go down. With legalization of drugs the price will go down. Right? If the price goes down, all the junkies and lowlifes would not have to rob, steal and murder as often to support their habit. They still won’t be willing to do honest work to buy it. Because their fix is legalized, they won’t have to commit as many crimes to obtain the funds to buy it. There is still the issue of the damage drugs do to the body. Personal choice or not. Can you imagine the personal injury lawsuits filed, suing the government for the bodily damage done to the junkies since the government legalized this stuff to start with? Just my opinion.

cowboymd wrote:If these drugs were legalized, crime in general should go down. With legalization of drugs the price will go down. Right? If the price goes down, all the junkies and lowlifes would not have to rob, steal and murder as often to support their habit. They still won’t be willing to do honest work to buy it. Because their fix is legalized, they won’t have to commit as many crimes to obtain the funds to buy it. There is still the issue of the damage drugs do to the body. Personal choice or not. Can you imagine the personal injury lawsuits filed, suing the government for the bodily damage done to the junkies since the government legalized this stuff to start with? Just my opinion.

Might Depend on the Drug, It isn't unknown for potheads, Alcoholics or Cigarette smokers to lead productive lives. I don't know if the government has ever been sued legalizing tobacco, alcohol or cafeine either.

Maybe we should make illegal transfats and potato chips, WE can can sue the government until they do make it illegal

Liberty wrote:A few states have made steps toward decriminalization of marijuana. Either by legalizing medical use or decreasing penalties for modest amounts. Like CHL programs there hasn't been any of the projected blood in the streets. but midnite sales at Taco Belle have shown increases.

So legalization would stimulate the economy more than $800-plus billion of Obama pork.

I can't say that I am "For" the legalization but I think we could benefit from many aspects of legalizing certain drugs. Like tobacco use, the legalization of other drugs would help decrease a population that is out of control. And the decrease would come from the less desirable population. Those who choose to engage the use of drugs would most certainly reduce the life expectancy. So, I don't see the problem here.

Additionally, if they were legal, our friends in the government could tax the sale and stimulate the economy further. Again, I don't see the problem here.

Alcohol does enough to harm our society. Now we should legalize pot as an entry drug so the Gov can make some $$$? In response to the forum post that our war on drugs is the definition of insanity, I say not standing up for what is right is the definition of insanity and seeing how devastating alcohol is and wanting to legalize and legitimize illegal drugs on top of that is insane too.

Who says we're losing the war anyway. Drug use on the whole is down. Why stop at legalizing pot and ALL drugs should be legal for these same arguments about making the Gov money and since we can't stop someone anyway. Legalize crack? It would be next on this slippery slope...

I've never tried pot since it was illegal. I guess if it were legal then there would be a large increase in its use since our government would endorse it. It's just not worth it. You can't equate banning guns with drugs since guns are part of our Constitution and guns SAVE lives whereas drugs are a plague on our society.

There will still be a "new and cool" drug that'll come out to appeal to our inner rebellion so then there'll still be illegal drugs, crime, and broken lives associated with that.

Illegal drugs my be a "victimless" crime but for the same reason prostitution, suicide, human cloning, and euthanasia are illegal, it's for the best of society, no matter how hard it is to fight.

But to get back on topic, I hope we're supporting the Mexican army's war on drugs for it's a battle worth fighting for and like any other war we fight, we can't afford to lose.

Illegal drug use is not a victimless crime. Problem is that the victim is not the user of the drugs, directly. The victim is the homeowner whose house is broken into because a drug addict needs money for drugs. Or the innocent child who gets shot in the crossfire of a gang shooting. The victims are not usually those involved in the crime.

Legalizing drugs (and not just marijuana) would dramatically reduce all of these crimes. It may increase the number of people addicted to drugs, but in the long run the body count and property crime benefit would far outweigh the downside of a few more users of these drugs. We just had a long thread where people claimed that you can drink alcohol responsibly, but the fact is that alcohol use is just as dangerous as the recreational use of many of these street drugs on a personal scale, so save the morality arguments unless you are going to go back in favor of reinstituting prohibition of alcohol. Time for society to stop being such hypocrites. If you can drink responsibly, then you can use marijuana, cocaine, or methamphetamine responsibly too.

We always have this problem with making legal those things that we know are self-destructive. But self-destructive people are going to self-destruct anyway. There is always a way. It's like thinking that banning guns will reduce suicide. What's next, banning knives? Ropes? tall buildings or bridges? Trees that you can run your car into? Cars? I bet most of the people who would start using drugs if they were legalized are already abusers of alcohol, prescription drugs, or OTC drugs of some kind.

And while I am talking about morally unpopular things, I don't see how whether you were drunk or under the influence of some other drug has any bearing on the severity of a crime. If my family is killed in a car wreck by a negligent person, the reason they were negligent is irrelevant. Whether they were talking on their cell phone, they were just a bad driver, they were falling asleep, drunk, turning left into the turn lane, or high on PCP is completely moot. The punishment should be the same. I'm all for increasing the punishment across the board, but increasing it ONLY under the circumstances that you were at fault in addition to some other factor is hypocritical and inconsistent. That's what's wrong with our laws and our government to begin with. Legalizing drugs while also carving out another category of special crime and punishment is just trading one hypocrisy for another.

mr.72 wrote:Illegal drug use is not a victimless crime. Problem is that the victim is not the user of the drugs, directly. The victim is the homeowner whose house is broken into because a drug addict needs money for drugs. Or the innocent child who gets shot in the crossfire of a gang shooting. The victims are not usually those involved in the crime.

Legalizing drugs (and not just marijuana) would dramatically reduce all of these crimes. It may increase the number of people addicted to drugs, but in the long run the body count and property crime benefit would far outweigh the downside of a few more users of these drugs. We just had a long thread where people claimed that you can drink alcohol responsibly, but the fact is that alcohol use is just as dangerous as the recreational use of many of these street drugs on a personal scale, so save the morality arguments unless you are going to go back in favor of reinstituting prohibition of alcohol. Time for society to stop being such hypocrites. If you can drink responsibly, then you can use marijuana, cocaine, or methamphetamine responsibly too.

We always have this problem with making legal those things that we know are self-destructive. But self-destructive people are going to self-destruct anyway. There is always a way. It's like thinking that banning guns will reduce suicide. What's next, banning knives? Ropes? tall buildings or bridges? Trees that you can run your car into? Cars? I bet most of the people who would start using drugs if they were legalized are already abusers of alcohol, prescription drugs, or OTC drugs of some kind.

And while I am talking about morally unpopular things, I don't see how whether you were drunk or under the influence of some other drug has any bearing on the severity of a crime. If my family is killed in a car wreck by a negligent person, the reason they were negligent is irrelevant. Whether they were talking on their cell phone, they were just a bad driver, they were falling asleep, drunk, turning left into the turn lane, or high on PCP is completely moot. The punishment should be the same. I'm all for increasing the punishment across the board, but increasing it ONLY under the circumstances that you were at fault in addition to some other factor is hypocritical and inconsistent. That's what's wrong with our laws and our government to begin with. Legalizing drugs while also carving out another category of special crime and punishment is just trading one hypocrisy for another.

That's what I'm talking about.

mr.72 wrote:Whether they were talking on their cell phone, they were just a bad driver, they were falling asleep, drunk, turning left into the turn lane, or high on PCP is completely moot. The punishment should be the same. I'm all for increasing the punishment across the board, but increasing it ONLY under the circumstances that you were at fault in addition to some other factor is hypocritical and inconsistent. That's what's wrong with our laws and our government to begin with.

I have to disagree with this. The purpose of the courts is not only to determine if a party is guilty of a crime, but to also determine punishment based on the circumstances of the crime. To remove the ability for a jury to temper justice with mercy puts us in totalitarian system of justice that is completely unacceptable.

In many cases, we do need for the justice system to be imposing stricter sentences, but we simply do not need hard rule sentencing.

txflyer wrote:

mr.72 wrote:Whether they were talking on their cell phone, they were just a bad driver, they were falling asleep, drunk, turning left into the turn lane, or high on PCP is completely moot. The punishment should be the same. I'm all for increasing the punishment across the board, but increasing it ONLY under the circumstances that you were at fault in addition to some other factor is hypocritical and inconsistent. That's what's wrong with our laws and our government to begin with.

I have to disagree with this. The purpose of the courts is not only to determine if a party is guilty of a crime, but to also determine punishment based on the circumstances of the crime. To remove the ability for a jury to temper justice with mercy puts us in totalitarian system of justice that is completely unacceptable.

Sure. Allow the JURY to make this determination, but you are advocating exactly what you say you oppose. Do you oppose hard-line increased sentences, or not? Only in the case of DUI? What if I think it should be ONLY in the case of text messaging while driving or putting on make-up? That's the problem with being inconsistent. Everyone has a different opinion.