This could be interesting. Cartels making overt threats in our borders.

[nso123]

Threatening cartel billboards warning police to choose 'silver over lead' come complete with hanging mannequins appearing in Texas | Mail Online

If this is not some hoax, it sounds like things have been stepped up a bit on this side of the border by the bad guys.

 

[jrassy]

Well let's just ignore them until someone gets killed.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

We could stop the drug issue if we wanted to,*** but when it's a state sponsored program the old saying "In confusion there is opportunity" applies. Everything we have declared war on,... drugs,... poverty,... GWOT, ect has been a cash cow for those who have been in the "Fight" from the cheap seats.

***With Free lance hunters.

 

[308Gunner]

The DPS has gun boats on the Rio Grande it has been bad for a while now.

 

[Maggot]

We could stop the drug issue if we wanted to,*** but when it's a state sponsored program the old saying "In confusion there is opportunity" applies. Everything we have declared war on,... drugs,... poverty,... GWOT, ect has been a cash cow for those who have been in the "Fight" from the cheap seats.

***With Free lance hunters.

I prefer, 'PAID PARASITES".

Thanks you.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

I prefer, 'PAID PARASITES"

Paid by who,... the same ones using the smoke and mirrors telling everyone they will take care of the issue, that they started in the first place?

 

[Smcarroll]

I always found it horribly idiotic that we went to war in the middle east over national security but we allow mexico to fester. we need to clean out that rats nest.

 

[thebolt]

Texas must be interfering with the cartel as they bring their tractor trailer loads to Colorado.

 

[Maggot]

Paid by who,... the same ones using the smoke and mirrors telling everyone they will take care of the issue, that they started in the first place?

Paid to the above by the American taxpayer, at the behest of the 1/100 of the 1% who control the gubmint and use it to their own benefit and enrichment.


Unfortunately, drugs represent only a small % of the problem with the cartels. They have branched out into tapping oil pipelines, stealing iron ore and selling it to China, anything they can do to steal from those who work for it. Left un dealt with it will definitely move north.

 

[nic_bravo_whiskey]

Yeah. It was a bit strange. The thing is, cartels usually use real bodies. Here are more pics that my buddy took.





Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[George Az]

The cartels are a true business success story. Up from nothing. They have the will do do what it takes and they fear no one. They operate with impunity. If I was a cop in Texas, I don't worry about them for myself, I worry about what they would do to my family. The cartels are the law, and don't worry about borders, counties, countries, rules or laws. The do what they want when they want and everything else, our puny little efforts to enforce any law, is a bump in the road. The can listen to all our L/E traffic and have paid employees in every sector of our government. Mexico has it heroes and they are Los carteles!
In some areas and neighborhoods, they pass out Christmas gifts, if your kid is sick, a doctor comes. The level of corruption in Mexico is amazing and we and our governmanet have happily ignored and perhaps been a part of it for decades.

They are strong, with good training and operate quite well. We trained em!

 

[nic_bravo_whiskey]

The cartels are a true business success story. Up from nothing. They have the will do do what it takes and they fear no one. They operate with impunity. If I was a cop in Texas, I don't worry about them for myself, I worry about what they would do to my family. The cartels are the law, and don't worry about borders, counties, countries, rules or laws. The do what they want when they want and everything else, our puny little efforts to enforce any law, is a bump in the road. The can listen to all our L/E traffic and have paid employees in every sector of our government. Mexico has it heroes and they are Los carteles!
In some areas and neighborhoods, they pass out Christmas gifts, if your kid is sick, a doctor comes. The level of corruption in Mexico is amazing and we and our governmanet have happily ignored and perhaps been a part of it for decades.

They are strong, with good training and operate quite well. We trained em!

Wow. You have a rather fond attitude toward the cartels.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[EddieNFL]

Wow. You have a rather fond attitude toward the cartels.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I think he was pointing out the facts of the matter.

 

[George Az]

I spent six years of my life in the Border Patrol, I buried friends. I know what time it is. I moved away from the border because I know first hand what happens. There are two Border Patrol agents in TEXAS who were sent to prison because the fired their weapons and did not report it properly. OK, I get it, but I also know it is a combat zone in many areas.

 

[nic_bravo_whiskey]

I spent six years of my life in the Border Patrol, I buried friends. I know what time it is. I moved away from the border because I know first hand what happens. There are two Border Patrol agents in TEXAS who were sent to prison because the fired their weapons and did not report it properly. OK, I get it, but I also know it is a combat zone in many areas.

There is a lot more to that story than that.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[diverdon]

There is a lot more to that story than that.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Not on a board where the faults of our political leadership are not discussed their is not.

 

[W54/XM-388]

We could also just maybe think about quitting the phony war on drugs and just tell Big Pharma to get rich upping production of all the good quality stuff they know how to make and then all the drug dealers will be out of a market and the government can be happy with more legit tax revenue....

Apparently however we learned nothing from prohibition...

 

[JSTARSZ]

There are two Border Patrol agents in TEXAS who were sent to prison because the fired their weapons and did not report it properly. OK, I get it, but I also know it is a combat zone in many areas.

and that there is the problem...we have bureaucrats and lawyers generating the Rules of Engagement for troops, AKA Border patrol in this scenario, that are risk averse and fail to understand the pressure pressure Border officers are under on a daily basis - kill or be killed. They feel, or so it seems, that it is easier to go to an agents funeral than fill out too much paperwork if an agent has to fire his weapon. There is a war on the border but as usual politicians are too tone-deaf to admit to it. Those rules of engagement is exactly what generates corruption. If an agent knows he will not be backed-up for saving himself what alternatives do they have, quit, never put yourself in a dangerous position, or take money from the cartel.

 

[dmike]

Wow. You have a rather fond attitude toward the cartels.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

I read it more as recognizing the power and cunning of a dangerous adversary. You're in a better geographical position than most of us to know what's going on, what's your opinion? I was in SE AZ recently and I was shocked to find that they maintain OPs on US Federal land, get aerial resupply, use brevity codes over radio comms, and even conduct snap TCPs on US civilian traffic. It could be argued that they have some strategic legitimacy in the area. They make our best attempts to interdict and eradicate look pitiful. The last time things escalated down there they set fire to thousands of acres of habitat, ranches and homes and sent a fairly clear message about who was really in charge.

 

[EventHorizon]

Borderlandbeat.com for those who truly want to know the who, how and WTF of the masterclass of corruption, torture, misery and wretchedness that has landed on our border.

 

[eli polite]

the war going on down there is our current Vietnam. they can loose every battle but they are winning the war no one can deny that. The tactics need to change we are fighting a ruthless enemy who's solders have nothing to loose. they have an almost endless supply of desperately poor solders

 

[Maggot]

Borderlandbeat.com for those who truly want to know the who, how and WTF of the masterclass of corruption, torture, misery and wretchedness that has landed on our border.

Interesting.

 

[Mike_Honcho]

Paid by who,... the same ones using the smoke and mirrors telling everyone they will take care of the issue, that they started in the first place?

The war on drugs is merely a convenient means of managing off balance sheet financing for shit Congress won't let rogue elements do. LE that gets killed trying to stop it, addicts and the wake of destruction in their path - merely collateral damage.

Dosen't matter if we're talking about Reagan, the 'American hero' Oliver North and 'Freeway' Rick Ross spurning the crack epidemic to feed the Iran Contra machine, Bill Clinton and Medina Arkansas, or Bush2 / Obama and Afghan heroin.

Remember kiddies, just saying no means no money for black budgets, no private prisons, FAR fewer LE, less draconian search and seizure laws, fewer felons, more gun owners, more eligible voters, more families that stick together, fewer abortions, fewer bastard children....etc etc ad nauseam.

'They' know this too.......

 

[hermosabeach]

For those of you with Netflix, check out a documentary called
Narco Cultura.

It deals with the ballads written for the drug lords and the disparity of violence on the US vs the Mexican side of the border.

 

[Sean the Nailer]

I'd almost be a proponent of that Agent Orange stuff, over the whole country of Afghanistan just to eliminate the exixtence there, of opium.

Don't forget, I did use that key-word of "almost",,,, but there has to be a way of stopping it where it begins, no?

 

[Maggot]

The war on drugs is merely a convenient means of managing off balance sheet financing for shit Congress won't let rogue elements do. LE that gets killed trying to stop it, addicts and the wake of destruction in their path - merely collateral damage.

Dosen't matter if we're talking about Reagan, the 'American hero' Oliver North and 'Freeway' Rick Ross spurning the crack epidemic to feed the Iran Contra machine, Bill Clinton and Medina Arkansas, or Bush2 / Obama and Afghan heroin.

Remember kiddies, just saying no means no money for black budgets, no private prisons, FAR fewer LE, less draconian search and seizure laws, fewer felons, more gun owners, more eligible voters, more families that stick together, fewer abortions, fewer bastard children....etc etc ad nauseam.

'They' know this too.......

And that's what prohibition is really all about. Control.

 

[Maggot]

I'd almost be a proponent of that Agent Orange stuff, over the whole country of Afghanistan just to eliminate the exixtence there, of opium.

Don't forget, I did use that key-word of "almost",,,, but there has to be a way of stopping it where it begins, no?

NO.

One definition of crazy, or even stupid, is "to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

Prohibition has, and never will, work.

Because whenever, wherever, people want something, be that bibles in atheistic communist countries, cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, or opium, here, someone will always supply it.

The only reasonable answer is to legalize all of it, tax it, and use some of the tax dollars to help those who get in trouble.

 

[siscoe308]

All i gotta say is God bless those Border Patrol boys, they do a thankless job in the worst conditions. Not a job I'd want

 

[woojos]

For those of you with Netflix, check out a documentary called
Narco Cultura.

It deals with the ballads written for the drug lords and the disparity of violence on the US vs the Mexican side of the border.

I watched that the other night.

The other one that is on there is Cocaine Cowboys Redux which is the sequel to the first one about how the city of Miami was literally built from drug money. There was some stuff in there about Barry Seal who was allegedly involved in the Iran-Contra stuff. It gets hard sorting the conspiracy theory from fact, but the man was actually killed in a half way house by Colombians after the Italian mob from NY wouldn't touch him as he was being watched. All the guys in the Colombian hit squad were apprehended right after the hit. I was very entertained by these two flicks.

 

[marduk185]

why are we not shooting illegal crossers on sight? hell, land mine the whole damn border a mile wide. and while we're atit why not mandatory hanging for anyone hiring illegals? hell with a war on drugs, lets have a war on southern invaders.

 

[JaysonF]

This is why I have always been a strong proponent of making all drugs legal. If someone wants to die in a gutter from a heroin overdose, let them. Freedom is also letting someone do what you don't agree with, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. Remove the black market, focus on the crime. The argument would most likely be that people on drugs will commit crimes more often. Good, hold them accountable and get your incarceration "fix". They will either learn or not. Sink or swim. Let everything be legal, remove the taboo and let the problem sort itself out... In a gutter somewhere.

 

[zjmccauley]

If the US occupied southern borders/mexico with military force and targeted cartels the way we've targeted terrorist cells in the middle east (assuming there's looser ROE's than todays war for hearts and minds), every last cartel and it's members who defend it would be obliterated into oblivion. Al-Qaeda thought they could go toe to toe at one point.

 

[EddieNFL]

If the US occupied southern borders/mexico with military force...

Someone is sure to scream [FONT=arial, sans-serif]Posse Comitatus, but we're talking nation, not state borders. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]The oath I swore said "all enemies, foreign and domestic." It didn't have a caveat for criminals, illegal aliens or spacemen.[/FONT]

 

[Maggot]

This is why I have always been a strong proponent of making all drugs legal. If someone wants to die in a gutter from a heroin overdose, let them. Freedom is also letting someone do what you don't agree with, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. Remove the black market, focus on the crime. The argument would most likely be that people on drugs will commit crimes more often. Good, hold them accountable and get your incarceration "fix". They will either learn or not. Sink or swim. Let everything be legal, remove the taboo and let the problem sort itself out... In a gutter somewhere.

Exactly how I feel about it, except that most of the drug "crimes" are directly, or at least indirectly, attributable, to its being illegal. Take away the stigma you take away a large % of the problem. Would I encourage using heroin. NO. But I defend your right to do it.

 

[Mike_Honcho]

This is why I have always been a strong proponent of making all drugs legal. If someone wants to die in a gutter from a heroin overdose, let them. Freedom is also letting someone do what you don't agree with, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. Remove the black market, focus on the crime. The argument would most likely be that people on drugs will commit crimes more often. Good, hold them accountable and get your incarceration "fix". They will either learn or not. Sink or swim. Let everything be legal, remove the taboo and let the problem sort itself out... In a gutter somewhere.

Pretty simplistic thinking... It is the fog of drugs that saps motivation and the ability to hold a job, develop meaningful relationships, and take on one's rightful resonsibilities.

So if drugs are legal, and addicts being addicts - are you going to give them their drugs, money, housing, and healthcare so they do not commit crimes against persons or property? If not what are you solving? Are you willing to force birth control on them so we as a society need not be financially and morally responsible for their addiction born offspring (from cradle to grave). Do you feel it is morally acceptable to allow an addicts to procreate in the first place? I do not.

I tend to go the other way, if you manufacturer, distribute, sell, or profit from drugs - we have a trial, if you are found guilty - we shoot you in the head on national TV (so everyone gets the point of the excercise). If your an addict, we force birth control on you, we give you opportunities to help clean you up and get you back to being a productive member of society. Simply put, if your a dealer you're a parasite and need to be eliminated. If your an addict, you're abdicating your resonsibilities to the rest of us, so we'll make pragmatic decisions on your behalf until you're capable. And yes, I'd include docs that write obviously excessive scripts and their pill popping 'patients' as well. We're not gonna stop it all - when supply dries up, there will be folks who switch from meth to huffing, b/c that element will always exist. However, strong border control and extreme measures against the supply side and things would change radically within a generation. Infact, consider a single data subset - what happens to urban yutes if they are no longer warring over dope holes?

 

[woojos]

Pretty simplistic thinking... It is the fog of drugs that saps motivation and the ability to hold a job, develop meaningful relationships, and take on one's rightful resonsibilities.

So if drugs are legal, and addicts being addicts - are you going to give them their drugs, money, housing, and healthcare so they do not commit crimes against persons or property? If not what are you solving? Are you willing to force birth control on them so we as a society need not be financially and morally responsible for their addiction born offspring (from cradle to grave). Do you feel it is morally acceptable to allow an addicts to procreate in the first place? I do not.

I tend to go the other way, if you manufacturer, distribute, sell, or profit from drugs - we have a trial, if you are found guilty - we shoot you in the head on national TV (so everyone gets the point of the excercise). If your an addict, we force birth control on you, we give you opportunities to help clean you up and get you back to being a productive member of society. Simply put, if your a dealer you're a parasite and need to be eliminated. If your an addict, you're abdicating your resonsibilities to the rest of us, so we'll make pragmatic decisions on your behalf until you're capable. And yes, I'd include docs that write obviously excessive scripts and their pill popping 'patients' as well. We're not gonna stop it all - when supply dries up, there will be folks who switch from meth to huffing, b/c that element will always exist. However, strong boarder control and extreme measures against the supply side and things would change radically within a generation. Infact, consider a single data subset - what happens to urban yutes if they are no longer warring over dope holes?

Interesting solution, but good luck implementing it. Since we both know it's never going to happen, i.e. forced birth control and televised executions, a surprising suggestion from a guy who is on here frequently discussing corruption and abuses of power, a more realistic solution needs to be brainstormed. I tend to agree that this involves some sort of decriminalization/not legalization.

I might also be called a flaming hippy for this, but I don't think anybody really wants to be a crackhead. Most addicts, at least most that are in prison, are poor with really no options and I bet that feels pretty hopeless. If you or I feel shitty, we can go to a Dr. and get on an anti-depressant or another med because we have jobs and likely insurance, or go shoot our rifles, maybe take the boat out, play with the kids or dog, or go for a walk around our safe neighborhoods. If you're deep into welfare poor and sick of feeling bad, you turn to illicit drugs then end up getting sucked right down the toilet. Until some of these issues are addressed, drugs are not going to be going away anytime soon. It's the same old story.

People like to quote the experiment with rats, where they put the rats in the cage then put two water bottles in there, one with drugs and one without drugs and they end up sucking down the dope water. If you put these same rats in a nice little cage, with other rats to play with, and a wheel to spin on, with an alternative water source, they won't touch it. Self preservation is ingrained in the psyche and the will to self destruction usually is a result of the environment.

 

[Smcarroll]

Pretty simplistic thinking... It is the fog of drugs that saps motivation and the ability to hold a job, develop meaningful relationships, and take on one's rightful resonsibilities.

So if drugs are legal, and addicts being addicts - are you going to give them their drugs, money, housing, and healthcare so they do not commit crimes against persons or property? If not what are you solving? Are you willing to force birth control on them so we as a society need not be financially and morally responsible for their addiction born offspring (from cradle to grave). Do you feel it is morally acceptable to allow an addicts to procreate in the first place? I do not.

I tend to go the other way, if you manufacturer, distribute, sell, or profit from drugs - we have a trial, if you are found guilty - we shoot you in the head on national TV (so everyone gets the point of the excercise). If your an addict, we force birth control on you, we give you opportunities to help clean you up and get you back to being a productive member of society. Simply put, if your a dealer you're a parasite and need to be eliminated. If your an addict, you're abdicating your resonsibilities to the rest of us, so we'll make pragmatic decisions on your behalf until you're capable. And yes, I'd include docs that write obviously excessive scripts and their pill popping 'patients' as well. We're not gonna stop it all - when supply dries up, there will be folks who switch from meth to huffing, b/c that element will always exist. However, strong boarder control and extreme measures against the supply side and things would change radically within a generation. Infact, consider a single data subset - what happens to urban yutes if they are no longer warring over dope holes?

Drugs are legal. Alcohol, nicotine,caffeine plus the plethora of pharmaceuticals. For Christ's sake they are prescribing amphetamines to toddlers these days. I am so glad brainwashed dinosaurs like you are a shrinking minority.

 

[Mike_Honcho]

WJ - part of the point of the post was to get people to see the limitations of 'legalization'. You're right - every crack, meth, heroin, or script, addict I have known didn't say 'I want to be an addict' when they were a kid.

The problem with legalization is it doesn't solve many of the underlying problems it pushes onto society. So you end up with folks advocating this libertarian position about freedom to choose. The net result, if someone is rendered incapable b/c of their own choices, why should others be forced to become responsible (give up a piece of their freedom / fruits of their labor) b/c another wants to get high? Worse, why should an innocent life be brought into the world as addict or with diminished capacity b/c someone just wants to get high?

I fully understand that that what I wrote is never going to happen. It was a prompt for the crowd that mouths 'legalize it' based on their own level of self discipline to think a bit more about the greater societal goals and the consequences of simply legalizing it.


The real answer - within our current construct there is no answer that balances individual freedoms, protects society, and the unborn. We will always more or less have the situation that exists. It'd just be nice not have the Gov's hands involved on both sides.

 

[Maggot]

WJ - part of the point of the post was to get people to see the limitations of 'legalization'. You're right - every crack, meth, heroin, or script, addict I have known didn't say 'I want to be an addict' when they were a kid.

The problem with legalization is it doesn't solve many of the underlying problems it pushes onto society. So you end up with folks advocating this libertarian position about freedom to choose. The net result, if someone is rendered incapable b/c of their own choices, why should others be forced to become responsible (give up a piece of their freedom / fruits of their labor) b/c another wants to get high? Worse, why should an innocent life be brought into the world as addict or with diminished capacity b/c someone just wants to get high?

I fully understand that that what I wrote is never going to happen. It was a prompt for the crowd that mouths 'legalize it' based on their own level of self discipline to think a bit more about the greater societal goals and the consequences of simply legalizing it.


The real answer - within our current construct there is no answer that balances individual freedoms, protects society, and the unborn. We will always more or less have the situation that exists. It'd just be nice not have the Gov's hands involved on both sides.

I don't have statistics, but if you totaled the cost of the harm done to society by alcohol and or tobacco, I would wager it tops that done by all the others combined. Your position fails to consider two points.

1-By making some things legal (alcohol and tobacco) and some (opiates, cannabis, crack, meth) you create an un level playing field, and in my opinion violate specific constitutional rights.

2-It being illegal is 80% of the problem. If it were legal so you could go to work, earn your pay, go home and do a bowl of what ever. You take away both the social stigma, and the negative influence of the illegal association. If you run into a problem there is money to get help because society is not wasting billions on enforcing laws that will never work, and incarcerating those who break them. There is no logic to prohibition in a free society.

As I stated before, I would discourage the use of most of them, but defend the right of the individual to their choice.

 

[Mike_Honcho]

Maggot don't get me wrong - I'm all about individual rights - right up to the point where they infringe on mine.

If libertarians can let go of the 'let 'em do as they please' dogma for a second and consider the way it works in practice - not theory - there are VERY few casual users of meth / crack / heroin. Most folks that catch that first rocket ride from crack are blown away by how literally awesome it feels, or feel truly empowered by a fat rail. A slim few can put it down and walk away, but statistically - were talkin' very slim few. Walk it on down the line and at some point the need to feed one's habit means taking from (either liberty or fruits of labor) from others; and in the event of conception, means stealing (at minimum) promise from the unborn. Is that really what is best for ALL individuals? Is it best for society? Is it best for the unborn?

Secondly, you don't need stats to prove to me or anyone else that is awake that alcohol and tobacco have done more harm than illicit drugs. They have also benefitted from legalization, media (even claiming they were good for sore throats), and even sanctioned by Uncle Sugar (part of C rations). Logically, what happens if these drugs are legalized? Every addict I know / knew was a white kid that came out of a middle class -> upper middle class household where Mommy, Daddy, Coach, Teacher, and the Preacher all said 'don't do drugs'. So if penalty of law, dissuasion from advisors, and (eventually) first hand example of tragedy were not not enough - what happens when society deems it legal?

Other food for thought on the legal status of legal alcohol and tobacco - the same draconian measures that I was discussing above are coming into play with Obama Care. Smoke all your life? Now you're 75 with lung cancer? Gee, tough shit, here's an aspirin - b/c we as a society have deemed it necessary to allocate the fruits of other's labor in a manner that gives the society more bang for the buck.

I tend to believe that the vast majority of those that advocate for the legalization of drugs have never been in crack house, never watched friends go to prison, or lost friends to addiction or addiction related circumstances; and view drugs through a personal lens of casual (and maybe even arguably responsible) use of MJ.



Again, my beef is that the man behind the curtain is playing with 2 balls in the fairway.

 

[Smcarroll]

Well said maggot.

 

[EddieNFL]

If you're deep into welfare poor and sick of feeling bad, you turn to illicit drugs then end up getting sucked right down the toilet.

Yeah, if you choose to give up. Not everyone takes the easy way out.

Determined to turn her sons around, Sonya limited their TV time to just a few select programs and refused to let them go outside to play until they'd finished their homework. She was criticized for this by her friends, who said her boys would grow up to hate her. But she was determined that her sons would have greater opportunities than she did.

http://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422#awesm=~oFpGG5DqarHXxt

 

[Maggot]

Yeah, if you choose to give up. Not everyone takes the easy way out.



http://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422#awesm=~oFpGG5DqarHXxt

That's quite a story, Eddie. Thanks for posting.

 

[EventHorizon]

I don't have statistics, but if you totaled the cost of the harm done to society by alcohol and or tobacco, I would wager it tops that done by all the others combined. Your position fails to consider two points.

1-By making some things legal (alcohol and tobacco) and some (opiates, cannabis, crack, meth) you create an un level playing field, and in my opinion violate specific constitutional rights.

2-It being illegal is 80% of the problem. If it were legal so you could go to work, earn your pay, go home and do a bowl of what ever. You take away both the social stigma, and the negative influence of the illegal association. If you run into a problem there is money to get help because society is not wasting billions on enforcing laws that will never work, and incarcerating those who break them. There is no logic to prohibition in a free society.

As I stated before, I would discourage the use of most of them, but defend the right of the individual to their choice.

This is not a well thought out view to be honest. You espouse libertarianism yet suggest .gov will be there to the rescue when the tweaking libertines need them all because the money will magically be 'saved' for them because it's not being wasted on fighting drug gangs etc.

Come on! There is actual precedence on the blight of addiction unhindered by law in England. Look up the effects of the gin and opium houses. No laws, regulations etc. Everyone was shitfaced... we are spinning up chemicals and compounds at a rate that has left our evolutionary ability to adapt way way way in the dust and these drugs are not something that an informed decision other than abstinence can be made.

Anyway, enough of this bullshit, here's a newsflash, most of the cartels are not looking at drugs as a mainstream income anymore. They're taking over whole ports, pipelines, businesses... why do you think they're moving up north...?

 

[Smcarroll]

Instead of spending billions incarcerating minor drug offenders why not spend that money on treatment?

 

[Mike_Honcho]

Instead of spending billions incarcerating minor drug offenders why not spend that money on treatment?

Addicts don't take sobriety seriously until they have hit bottom, and bottom is different for everyone. Bottom is not determined by society, those that love the addict, nor the courts - it is the exclusive province of the addict themselves. Most jurisdictions do have money set aside to help pay for treatment and counseling for addictions, so when they really get there and there is no other safety net for that person, there generally is some money available for qualifying individuals.

Secondly, no one is doing long stretches for being an addict. People do real time because they are holding weight - manufacturers / dealers; they hurt, kill, or steal when they are high or in pursuit of getting high; they violate their parole by getting high and get sent back. It is a myth mouthed by the doper crowd that people are in the can simply b/c they are addicts. No - they are in the can b/c they are addicts that are committing crimes. More so - they are addicts that aren't ready to quit.

Shifting the lion's share of funding to the user instead of the stemming the flow doesn't work because in order for the addict to REALLY quit - they have to have skin in the game. Cash = commitment. Cash means that there is either a current and or future focus on staying clean in order to hold a job to pay for treatment and counseling. Conversely, if an addict gets pinched but is offered treatment as an option yet they have no intent to stay clean - we as a society just wasted the same dollars that may have tagged a mule with a load. In the bigger picture - stopping the mule was a greater win for society than committing the funds to treatment for an addict that may or may not be ready to quit.

Only so many slices of pie to go around.

 

[woojos]

Yeah, if you choose to give up. Not everyone takes the easy way out.

http://www.biography.com/people/ben-carson-475422#awesm=~oFpGG5DqarHXxt

Yes, very true but those people are exceptional human beings, which by definition means they are far outside of the norm. If everyone was an exceptional person, we wouldn't suffer from these problems.

This is really what I'm trying to get, i.e. creating an environment where everyone at least has at least a shred of an opportunity to be exceptional, where people who take the easier road are the exception and become a smaller, easier problem to deal with.

IMO the logical way to deal with this is remove the huge profits to be gained from the transport and sale of the drugs and get the non-violent offenders out of jail, which would free up some of the resources used currently used in the drug war that can be used to clean up the neighborhoods, clean up the people, clean up the schools, and create some jobs, giving an alternative.

It's become quite obvious that the almost 43 year old approach to this problem isn't working.

 

[Maggot]

Yes, very true but those people are exceptional human beings, which by definition means they are far outside of the norm. If everyone was an exceptional person, we wouldn't suffer from these problems.

This is really what I'm trying to get, i.e. creating an environment where everyone at least has at least a shred of an opportunity to be exceptional, where people who take the easier road are the exception and become a smaller, easier problem to deal with.

IMO the logical way to deal with this is remove the huge profits to be gained from the transport and sale of the drugs and get the non-violent offenders out of jail, which would free up some of the resources used currently used in the drug war that can be used to clean up the neighborhoods, clean up the people, clean up the schools, and create some jobs, giving an alternative.

It's become quite obvious that the almost 43 year old approach to this problem isn't working.

Best idea? END THE WAR! Its failed. Only stupid people keep doing the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. The war has failed...time for a different approach. Fucking period.

 

[nic_bravo_whiskey]

Well, EPPD caught the guy responsible. Not cartel related.

http://m.kvia.com/news/police-arrest-billboard-vandalism-suspect/26188600

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[Smcarroll]

Addicts don't take sobriety seriously until they have hit bottom, and bottom is different for everyone. Bottom is not determined by society, those that love the addict, nor the courts - it is the exclusive province of the addict themselves. Most jurisdictions do have money set aside to help pay for treatment and counseling for addictions, so when they really get there and there is no other safety net for that person, there generally is some money available for qualifying individuals.

Secondly, no one is doing long stretches for being an addict. People do real time because they are holding weight - manufacturers / dealers; they hurt, kill, or steal when they are high or in pursuit of getting high; they violate their parole by getting high and get sent back. It is a myth mouthed by the doper crowd that people are in the can simply b/c they are addicts. No - they are in the can b/c they are addicts that are committing crimes. More so - they are addicts that aren't ready to quit.

Shifting the lion's share of funding to the user instead of the stemming the flow doesn't work because in order for the addict to REALLY quit - they have to have skin in the game. Cash = commitment. Cash means that there is either a current and or future focus on staying clean in order to hold a job to pay for treatment and counseling. Conversely, if an addict gets pinched but is offered treatment as an option yet they have no intent to stay clean - we as a society just wasted the same dollars that may have tagged a mule with a load. In the bigger picture - stopping the mule was a greater win for society than committing the funds to treatment for an addict that may or may not be ready to quit.

Only so many slices of pie to go around.

No dealers = no distribution charges. If I could grow my own or purchase it from a store I wouldn't ever deal with a drug dealer again.