Seems simple to me... In my mind, the main purpose of laws is to minimize human suffering etc. We can see from the huge problems in Mexico and elsewhere that drug laws and policies have utterly failed in this respect. Therefore drugs should be legal. I believe there's evidence that the illegality of drugs doesn't even reduce their consumption much, but I could be wrong.
All their advantages in the current market are weaknesses in the open market. Most likely they would turn on each other and destroy each other as they went bankrupt fighting over the tiny illegal market, mainly human trafficking, that remained.
edit - As an example, do you buy beer which is brewed with pride by the Al Capones Mafia Hit Squad Brewery?
Getting the cartels out of the drug trade is one thing, getting rid of them altogether is another story. They're not going to simply self-destruct, they'll just move on. There's more than just human trafficking, anywhere you have people you have pickings for extortion or numbers or loan-sharking.
People in 1950 didn't buy Al Capone's beer, but they paid dues to Jimmy Hoffa's and Frank Fitzsimmon's union. Just because building construction was legal in New York City didn't keep the mob from retaining a stranglehold over the industry. It wasn't any sort of market competition from legit businesses that forced the mob out of the construction business, but rather 3 decades of the feds chiseling away at them, capo by capo.
And they controlled Las Vegas up through the 1970s, during which time gambling was legal in Nevada. Yet, aside from a brief flight of fancy by Howard Hughes, there were no corporations who wanted any part of Vegas until the FBI de-mobbed it in the 1980s. It was only after that full scale FBI assault, which took out mob leadership in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Kansas City and scared off many other families, that you got legitimate figures like Sam Boyd and Steve Wynn building Vegas into the family-friendly tourist mecca it is today.
The argument for legalizing hard drugs isn't generally saying that their abuse is ok, or that there are no negative externalities due to drug use.
People are going to use drugs regardless of their legal status. Those people who are prone to ruining their lives via drug addiction would be prone to ruining it via other means as well, many of which aren't illegal (alcoholism for one). I have no doubt that legalization would increase incidence of usage, but I remain unconvinced it would add significantly more abuse than the current situation. Addiction is commonly recognized as a disease and should be treated as such.
Taxation of a legal good allows for the remedying of the negative externalities of drug use without dipping as far into general funds. Right now all the money flushed down the hole of interdiction is almost entirely economically wasted. Drug use is far more correlated with economic circumstances than with any of our ham fisted attempts at actually preventing use via interdiction and excalating criminal penalties. Putting a fairly high sin tax on drug consumption, perhaps pro-rated by potential harm (herion has a higher excise tax than marijuana), is a far better approach. The revenue generated could then be spent on health care, social services, and education aimed at remedying the more egregious damage caused by drug use. This is far better than our current policy, which props up horrific drug cartels, imprisons otherwise productive members of society, and creates a net economic drain on society.
The problem is, where do you draw the line? By your same reasoning, you could say: "People are going to shoot other people whether we make it illegal or not. Let's just get rid of murder as a crime and put a huge tax on it." People on hard drugs can be as much a danger to others as they are themselves. While it's impossible to know for sure whether or not legalizing hard drugs would increase DUIs, etc. it's not exactly an unreasonable hypothesis. And I don't want my family to die because some idiot snorted coke before he went off to work.
Seems simple to me... In my mind, the main purpose of laws is to minimize human suffering etc. We can see from the huge problems in Mexico and elsewhere that drug laws and policies have utterly failed in this respect. Therefore drugs should be legal. I believe there's evidence that the illegality of drugs doesn't even reduce their consumption much, but I could be wrong.
NB Argument vastly simplified.
If you're advocating legalizing all drugs, I say we legalize all weapons. I want some automatic weapons that don't cost a fortune.
Cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine. Yet they remain legal, even with all of their long term health draw backs.
I'm no fancy biolecular physicist here, but I've done coke and I've smoked the occasional cigarette. I can promise you that I've never stayed up for two days smoking cigarettes and then, at 3am, driven to the ghetto to buy another carton cuz I ran out.
Even if cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine, they aren't nearly as damaging to the body or to innocent bystanders of my coke-fueled rage.
yeah, this.
Anyone who tries to justify making hard drugs illegal by comparing the long term health effects to tobacco clearly has never been on a coke binge.
Hard drugs should stay illegal, always. But the punishment for possession shouldn't be jail.
The problem is, where do you draw the line? By your same reasoning, you could say: "People are going to shoot other people whether we make it illegal or not. Let's just get rid of murder as a crime and put a huge tax on it." People on hard drugs can be as much a danger to others as they are themselves. While it's impossible to know for sure whether or not legalizing hard drugs would increase DUIs, etc. it's not exactly an unreasonable hypothesis. And I don't want my family to die because some idiot snorted coke before he went off to work.
The reason legal drugs are OK and murder isn't is because murder is fundamentally bad for someone who isn't you. You impinged on their right to live. Legalizing drugs won't increase drug usage due to the utter failure of the war on drugs to cut supply, all it will do is mean people don't need to kill and steal to support their drug habits, and that the drugs won't be cut with rat poison or ash.
Its why suicide should be legal, and murder shouldn't be. Suicide impacts only you, murder kills someone else. While suicide can affect other people emotionally, it does not impace any fundamental right that they have. If you drive after taking heroin, its already illegal, we don't need to ban the heroin.
And, considering the coke snorting idiot, what about the guy who took ten shots of Bourbon and was good to drive two hours later? What about the guy who stayed up all night watching a Friends marathon and is totally good to drive? What about the trucker who just drove 8 hours without a break? We already allow plenty of things which might endanger your life on the roads. Heck, most reports say driving tired is worse than driving drunk.
And we'd make so much money from tax and save so much money on enforcement and anti-gang programs that we could easily offset any downside.
Cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine. Yet they remain legal, even with all of their long term health draw backs.
I'm no fancy biolecular physicist here, but I've done coke and I've smoked the occasional cigarette. I can promise you that I've never stayed up for two days smoking cigarettes and then, at 3am, driven to the ghetto to buy another carton cuz I ran out.
Even if cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine, they aren't nearly as damaging to the body or to innocent bystanders of my coke-fueled rage.
yeah, this.
Anyone who tries to justify making hard drugs illegal by comparing the long term health effects to tobacco clearly has never been on a coke binge.
Hard drugs should stay illegal, always. But the punishment for possession shouldn't be jail.
Cocaine doesn't really have that many side effects other than addiction. Its the stuff its cut with and the fact its expensive that make it so dangerous. Its why it was the drug of choice for all those 80s stockbrokers. Providing you stay rich and can afford the best, cocaine doesn't prevent you living your life. Its heroin that destroys you, and when people run out of cash they switch to heroin.
Anyway, if you are silly enough to want to hurt yourself then go for it. Inject that heroin, just pay the state enough tax on the stuff to cover your funeral costs.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited March 2009
The question of legalization of drugs is probably not on topic for a thread about the issues Mexico is facing.
I mean, legalization is just not a realistic solution to the rampant crime if for no other reason than it does not have enough support either in Mexico or from the US.
The question of legalization of drugs is probably not on topic for a thread about the issues Mexico is facing.
I mean, legalization is just not a realistic solution to the rampant crime if for no other reason than it does not have enough support either in Mexico or from the US.
I think the consensus is that no act of government can stop the problems unless the amount of cash being recieved by the drug dealers decreases. The war on drugs makes them richer and more ruthless. Until it stops Mexico and the US slums are doomed.
How can any government hope to control an agency who ignores the law totally, is willing to kill, and has more power and influence than it does?
Unless drugs can be removed from the picture then Mexico is on a downward spiral, and the only way to do this is legalization.
What else can the government do? Even with the aid of the US DEA the Cartels still have more money and power than the forces arrayed against them.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited March 2009
Also, you're being dramatic if you refuse to go to Mexico because of the violence. The tourist industry is alive and well, and nothing's going to happen to you if you stay on the beaten path. Encenada, Puerto Vallarta, etc. are all perfectly safe.
MrMister on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
The question of legalization of drugs is probably not on topic for a thread about the issues Mexico is facing.
I mean, legalization is just not a realistic solution to the rampant crime if for no other reason than it does not have enough support either in Mexico or from the US.
I think the consensus is that no act of government can stop the problems unless the amount of cash being recieved by the drug dealers decreases. The war on drugs makes them richer and more ruthless. Until it stops Mexico and the US slums are doomed.
How can any government hope to control an agency who ignores the law totally, is willing to kill, and has more power and influence than it does?
Unless drugs can be removed from the picture then Mexico is on a downward spiral, and the only way to do this is legalization.
What else can the government do? Even with the aid of the US DEA the Cartels still have more money and power than the forces arrayed against them.
Also, you're being dramatic if you refuse to go to Mexico because of the violence. The tourist industry is alive and well, and nothing's going to happen to you if you stay on the beaten path. Encenada, Puerto Vallarta, etc. are all perfectly safe.
Indeed, Mexico is almost two countries at this point. it's like not going to the bay area because you've heard about San Francisco. The drug dealers have no interest in the coastal regions, since they can't grow drugs there. Just take the standard 'I'm on holiday' precautions(keeping passports and IDs safe, keeping some emergency currency, not flashing wallets everywhere) and all will be well.
The argument for legalizing hard drugs isn't generally saying that their abuse is ok, or that there are no negative externalities due to drug use.
People are going to use drugs regardless of their legal status. Those people who are prone to ruining their lives via drug addiction would be prone to ruining it via other means as well, many of which aren't illegal (alcoholism for one). I have no doubt that legalization would increase incidence of usage, but I remain unconvinced it would add significantly more abuse than the current situation. Addiction is commonly recognized as a disease and should be treated as such.
Taxation of a legal good allows for the remedying of the negative externalities of drug use without dipping as far into general funds. Right now all the money flushed down the hole of interdiction is almost entirely economically wasted. Drug use is far more correlated with economic circumstances than with any of our ham fisted attempts at actually preventing use via interdiction and excalating criminal penalties. Putting a fairly high sin tax on drug consumption, perhaps pro-rated by potential harm (herion has a higher excise tax than marijuana), is a far better approach. The revenue generated could then be spent on health care, social services, and education aimed at remedying the more egregious damage caused by drug use. This is far better than our current policy, which props up horrific drug cartels, imprisons otherwise productive members of society, and creates a net economic drain on society.
The problem is, where do you draw the line? By your same reasoning, you could say: "People are going to shoot other people whether we make it illegal or not. Let's just get rid of murder as a crime and put a huge tax on it." People on hard drugs can be as much a danger to others as they are themselves. While it's impossible to know for sure whether or not legalizing hard drugs would increase DUIs, etc. it's not exactly an unreasonable hypothesis. And I don't want my family to die because some idiot snorted coke before he went off to work.
You criminalize unwanted behavior, its not the using of cocaine thats unwanted, so much as its the actions of a minority of people who while on cocaine act inappropriately. And those same actions are already criminal offences.
Drinking isnt illegal, driving isnt illegal, but put them together and you face heavy fines, possible jail time, and many long term repercussions like permanently lose your license to drive, etc etc.
There's also nothing stopping companies from discriminating against employees that do use recreational LEGAL drugs now. There are companies in some states that will not employ cigarette smokers. So its not like you can claim it will cause some huge hit to business productivity.
Personally, I would prefer for marijuanna and other drugs to remain illegal, but without a good reason to, I dont feel any better than people that oppose Gay Marriage / Abortion. So I'm willing to have it become legal when there isnt a good enough reason not to.
The question of legalization of drugs is probably not on topic for a thread about the issues Mexico is facing.
I mean, legalization is just not a realistic solution to the rampant crime if for no other reason than it does not have enough support either in Mexico or from the US.
I think the consensus is that no act of government can stop the problems unless the amount of cash being recieved by the drug dealers decreases. The war on drugs makes them richer and more ruthless. Until it stops Mexico and the US slums are doomed.
How can any government hope to control an agency who ignores the law totally, is willing to kill, and has more power and influence than it does?
Unless drugs can be removed from the picture then Mexico is on a downward spiral, and the only way to do this is legalization.
What else can the government do? Even with the aid of the US DEA the Cartels still have more money and power than the forces arrayed against them.
I say we do some shock and awe aerial bombing.
Wasn't that the plot behind Clear and Present Danger?
Does Mexico resemble New Reno from Fallout 2 or something?
emnmnme on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Also, you're being dramatic if you refuse to go to Mexico because of the violence. The tourist industry is alive and well, and nothing's going to happen to you if you stay on the beaten path. Encenada, Puerto Vallarta, etc. are all perfectly safe.
Some people might not be comfortable with the idea of spending their time living it up in a country where many of the locals have to deal with widespread poverty, violence and corruption. Not to mention the fact that "going off the beaten path" is the whole point of some trips.
Also, for the Amsterdam types there's the fact that a foreign national getting caught with a joint in Mexico is probably going to be doing a few years in a Mexican prison and there's basically SFA they can do about it.
The question of legalization of drugs is probably not on topic for a thread about the issues Mexico is facing.
I mean, legalization is just not a realistic solution to the rampant crime if for no other reason than it does not have enough support either in Mexico or from the US.
I think the consensus is that no act of government can stop the problems unless the amount of cash being recieved by the drug dealers decreases. The war on drugs makes them richer and more ruthless. Until it stops Mexico and the US slums are doomed.
How can any government hope to control an agency who ignores the law totally, is willing to kill, and has more power and influence than it does?
Unless drugs can be removed from the picture then Mexico is on a downward spiral, and the only way to do this is legalization.
What else can the government do? Even with the aid of the US DEA the Cartels still have more money and power than the forces arrayed against them.
I say we do some shock and awe aerial bombing.
Maybe loan them a battle tank division.
Look at Afghanistan. The full might of the US army arrayed against some poppy growers and still their outputs go up!
Perhaps a enormous effort in conjunction with all the worlds major finance houses to control and sieze their cash might work. Perhaps if their payments to each other and their underlings could be disrupted, prevented and delayed that would work, but the banks would never agree to it.
Anyway, if you are silly enough to want to hurt yourself then go for it. Inject that heroin, just pay the state enough tax on the stuff to cover your funeral costs.
See, I don't buy this and I'm a habitual cannabis user.
I think that we can all basically agree that alcohol and marijuana are "similar" on the drug scale. They're both safe casually, non-habit forming even when used consistently and with moderation. It's when you start looking at everything "harder" than those that we get to things that ruin lives and are built to create dependence and addiction.
I support the decriminalization and eventual legalization of cannabis, while I cannot support the legalization of "harder" substances due to the aggressive habit-forming substances that make up "harder" stuff. Decriminalization and fines for small amounts, sure.
The Crowing One on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
The question of legalization of drugs is probably not on topic for a thread about the issues Mexico is facing.
I mean, legalization is just not a realistic solution to the rampant crime if for no other reason than it does not have enough support either in Mexico or from the US.
I think the consensus is that no act of government can stop the problems unless the amount of cash being recieved by the drug dealers decreases. The war on drugs makes them richer and more ruthless. Until it stops Mexico and the US slums are doomed.
How can any government hope to control an agency who ignores the law totally, is willing to kill, and has more power and influence than it does?
Unless drugs can be removed from the picture then Mexico is on a downward spiral, and the only way to do this is legalization.
What else can the government do? Even with the aid of the US DEA the Cartels still have more money and power than the forces arrayed against them.
I say we do some shock and awe aerial bombing.
Maybe loan them a battle tank division.
Look at Afghanistan. The full might of the US army arrayed against some poppy growers and still their outputs go up!
Afghanistan is all far away and shit though.
Mexico is right next to us, no need to worry about getting permission to operate in foreign countries or the like.
Anyway, if you are silly enough to want to hurt yourself then go for it. Inject that heroin, just pay the state enough tax on the stuff to cover your funeral costs.
See, I don't buy this and I'm a habitual cannabis user.
I think that we can all basically agree that alcohol and marijuana are "similar" on the drug scale. They're both safe casually, non-habit forming even when used consistently and with moderation. It's when you start looking at everything "harder" than those that we get to things that ruin lives and are built to create dependence and addiction.
I support the decriminalization and eventual legalization of cannabis, while I cannot support the legalization of "harder" substances due to the aggressive habit-forming substances that make up "harder" stuff. Decriminalization and fines for small amounts, sure.
But they are only hurting themselves directly, and the drugs being illegal has totally failed to stop them getting it.
Legal - Taxation, no more destroying Mexico and the inner cities, power of gangs broken
Illegal - No taxation, Mexico and inner cities destroyed, gangs rampant, equal number of deaths from drugs, massive costs and police with no time for real crimes.
I mean, I wouldn't let Heroin be sold in stores. I'd advocate just having clinics. You go, you pay your money and you take your hard drugs right there. You then stay for a while, recover, and leave.
The problem is, where do you draw the line? By your same reasoning, you could say: "People are going to shoot other people whether we make it illegal or not. Let's just get rid of murder as a crime and put a huge tax on it." People on hard drugs can be as much a danger to others as they are themselves. While it's impossible to know for sure whether or not legalizing hard drugs would increase DUIs, etc. it's not exactly an unreasonable hypothesis. And I don't want my family to die because some idiot snorted coke before he went off to work.
The reason legal drugs are OK and murder isn't is because murder is fundamentally bad for someone who isn't you. You impinged on their right to live. Legalizing drugs won't increase drug usage due to the utter failure of the war on drugs to cut supply, all it will do is mean people don't need to kill and steal to support their drug habits, and that the drugs won't be cut with rat poison or ash.
Its why suicide should be legal, and murder shouldn't be. Suicide impacts only you, murder kills someone else. While suicide can affect other people emotionally, it does not impace any fundamental right that they have. If you drive after taking heroin, its already illegal, we don't need to ban the heroin.
And, considering the coke snorting idiot, what about the guy who took ten shots of Bourbon and was good to drive two hours later? What about the guy who stayed up all night watching a Friends marathon and is totally good to drive? What about the trucker who just drove 8 hours without a break? We already allow plenty of things which might endanger your life on the roads. Heck, most reports say driving tired is worse than driving drunk.
And we'd make so much money from tax and save so much money on enforcement and anti-gang programs that we could easily offset any downside.
That right there is your logical fallacy. For one, it is impossible to know what would happen in such an instance; there's too many unknown variables. For what it's worth though, my local area's war on drugs over the last 20 years has been highly effective. I can't speak for other places, and I don't live in an inner city or anything, but I can all but promise you that drug use where I live would increase if it were legal.
Suicide can affect others. Other people have to pay to bury you, pay your debts for you, etc. Suicide also doesn't make people desperate enough to lie, cheat, steal, and kill, which still makes it better than hard drugs.
The human body will metabolize that liquor in a few hours. A couple of caffiene pills can help those other people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't meth typically affect a person for a day+? But my point stands: where do you draw the line? Apparently it's after hard drugs, and before murder, but I'd like to know more exactly. You also seem to think that the disappearance of drugs as an illegal asset would collapse gangs. Hasn't history shown this to typically be false? And how much are you charging in taxes?
I think I should also inform you that I'm playing devil's advocate. I won't ever take drugs whether they're legal or not, so it doesn't personally affect me until it's someone else doing something stupid with it, and as a pro-gun rights person I would feel hypocritical being vehemently against legalization of hard drugs.
Terrendos on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Some people might not be comfortable with the idea of spending their time living it up in a country where many of the locals have to deal with widespread poverty, violence and corruption. Not to mention the fact that "going off the beaten path" is the whole point of some trips.
If inequality is your issue, then you can axe most exotic vacations people take. China? India? Ye-no.
Also, for the Amsterdam types there's the fact that a foreign national getting caught with a joint in Mexico is probably going to be doing a few years in a Mexican prison and there's basically SFA they can do about it.
Again, you're fucked in most of the rest of the world if you're a stoner and you can't bring yourself to go without. Get caught with a joint in Egypt? Yeah, have fun.
Anyway, if you are silly enough to want to hurt yourself then go for it. Inject that heroin, just pay the state enough tax on the stuff to cover your funeral costs.
See, I don't buy this and I'm a habitual cannabis user.
I think that we can all basically agree that alcohol and marijuana are "similar" on the drug scale. They're both safe casually, non-habit forming even when used consistently and with moderation. It's when you start looking at everything "harder" than those that we get to things that ruin lives and are built to create dependence and addiction.
I support the decriminalization and eventual legalization of cannabis, while I cannot support the legalization of "harder" substances due to the aggressive habit-forming substances that make up "harder" stuff. Decriminalization and fines for small amounts, sure.
But they are only hurting themselves directly, and the drugs being illegal has totally failed to stop them getting it.
Legal - Taxation, no more destroying Mexico and the inner cities, power of gangs broken
Illegal - No taxation, Mexico and inner cities destroyed, gangs rampant, equal number of deaths from drugs, massive costs and police with no time for real crimes.
I mean, I wouldn't let Heroin be sold in stores. I'd advocate just having clinics. You go, you pay your money and you take your hard drugs right there. You then stay for a while, recover, and leave.
And then you come back. And back. And back. And start ruining your health. Eventually, ruining your health enough, the state is forced to take care of you, spending a lot of money on your ass.
Or they put limits on the amount you can get. But that's not enough for you. So you start obtaining drugs by illegal means, which - as it turns out - is on-the-surface cheaper and 'better' than the government stuff. So you start using it more and more. And suddenly illegal drugs are back in business.
Anyway, if you are silly enough to want to hurt yourself then go for it. Inject that heroin, just pay the state enough tax on the stuff to cover your funeral costs.
See, I don't buy this and I'm a habitual cannabis user.
I think that we can all basically agree that alcohol and marijuana are "similar" on the drug scale. They're both safe casually, non-habit forming even when used consistently and with moderation. It's when you start looking at everything "harder" than those that we get to things that ruin lives and are built to create dependence and addiction.
I support the decriminalization and eventual legalization of cannabis, while I cannot support the legalization of "harder" substances due to the aggressive habit-forming substances that make up "harder" stuff. Decriminalization and fines for small amounts, sure.
But they are only hurting themselves directly, and the drugs being illegal has totally failed to stop them getting it.
Legal - Taxation, no more destroying Mexico and the inner cities, power of gangs broken
Illegal - No taxation, Mexico and inner cities destroyed, gangs rampant, equal number of deaths from drugs, massive costs and police with no time for real crimes.
I mean, I wouldn't let Heroin be sold in stores. I'd advocate just having clinics. You go, you pay your money and you take your hard drugs right there. You then stay for a while, recover, and leave.
And then you come back. And back. And back. And start ruining your health. Eventually, ruining your health enough, the state is forced to take care of you, spending a lot of money on your ass.
Hey you just described America's obesity epidemic!
So, when do you wanna go help me protest fast food restaurants?
America's obesity epidemic is, as far as I know, a self-discipline/cultural problem, not a 'this food is specifically designed to make you dependent' problem.
That right there is your logical fallacy. For one, it is impossible to know what would happen in such an instance; there's too many unknown variables. For what it's worth though, my local area's war on drugs over the last 20 years has been highly effective. I can't speak for other places, and I don't live in an inner city or anything, but I can all but promise you that drug use where I live would increase if it were legal.
Who cares about drug use? All we should care about is drug abuse.
Suicide can affect others. Other people have to pay to bury you, pay your debts for you, etc. Suicide also doesn't make people desperate enough to lie, cheat, steal, and kill, which still makes it better than hard drugs.
Much of the willingness to lie, cheat, steal and kill is due to the illegal nature of the substance. People tend to be a lot less overtly dangerous when they can feed their addictions without having to deal with criminal elements. I mean drunk driving is bad, but it is less bad than drunk driving and rum running gangs having turf wars.
The human body will metabolize that liquor in a few hours. A couple of caffiene pills can help those other people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't meth typically affect a person for a day+? But my point stands: where do you draw the line? Apparently it's after hard drugs, and before murder, but I'd like to know more exactly. You also seem to think that the disappearance of drugs as an illegal asset would collapse gangs. Hasn't history shown this to typically be false? And how much are you charging in taxes?
What line? Murder isn't the same as drug use. In one case you are ingesting an intoxicant, in the other you are ending a human life. Why are we even drawing parellels? The differences are manifest. Plus you can still make actions involving intoxicants illegal if you desire, as we do already.
Also, it isn't about collapsing gangs, it is about reducing their effectiveness. Sure gangs in Mexico won't vanish into the aether, but a large portion of their revenue stream will be cut off and the resulting crime will likely be more localized and less brutal than the current situation. It isn't about making some new world order filled with rainbows and sunshine, but rather minimizing harm. The rum running gangs and brutal violence of the 20's and 30's largely disappeared with the end of prohibition. So I'd say that the historical record by far supports the position that legalization will diminish the influence of the cartels.
Saammiel on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Anyway, if you are silly enough to want to hurt yourself then go for it. Inject that heroin, just pay the state enough tax on the stuff to cover your funeral costs.
See, I don't buy this and I'm a habitual cannabis user.
I think that we can all basically agree that alcohol and marijuana are "similar" on the drug scale. They're both safe casually, non-habit forming even when used consistently and with moderation. It's when you start looking at everything "harder" than those that we get to things that ruin lives and are built to create dependence and addiction.
I support the decriminalization and eventual legalization of cannabis, while I cannot support the legalization of "harder" substances due to the aggressive habit-forming substances that make up "harder" stuff. Decriminalization and fines for small amounts, sure.
But they are only hurting themselves directly, and the drugs being illegal has totally failed to stop them getting it.
Legal - Taxation, no more destroying Mexico and the inner cities, power of gangs broken
Illegal - No taxation, Mexico and inner cities destroyed, gangs rampant, equal number of deaths from drugs, massive costs and police with no time for real crimes.
I mean, I wouldn't let Heroin be sold in stores. I'd advocate just having clinics. You go, you pay your money and you take your hard drugs right there. You then stay for a while, recover, and leave.
And then you come back. And back. And back. And start ruining your health. Eventually, ruining your health enough, the state is forced to take care of you, spending a lot of money on your ass.
Or they put limits on the amount you can get. But that's not enough for you. So you start obtaining drugs by illegal means, which - as it turns out - is on-the-surface cheaper and 'better' than the government stuff. So you start using it more and more. And suddenly illegal drugs are back in business.
Crime by heroin addicts has fallen 60 per cent since the initiative to allow health clinics to administer controlled doses of the drug began 14 years ago, according to the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health.
Sure, people still bootleg moonshine after prohibition. But it isn't a major source of revenue for the mob like it was when it was illegal and they could charge much more. Similarly, it seems that decreasing America's reliance on foreign drugs would have a very detrimental effect on foreign criminal organizations.
America's obesity epidemic is, as far as I know, a self-discipline/cultural problem, not a 'this food is specifically designed to make you dependent' problem.
It's not designed to, but with some people it definitely does.
That right there is your logical fallacy. For one, it is impossible to know what would happen in such an instance; there's too many unknown variables. For what it's worth though, my local area's war on drugs over the last 20 years has been highly effective. I can't speak for other places, and I don't live in an inner city or anything, but I can all but promise you that drug use where I live would increase if it were legal.
Suicide can affect others. Other people have to pay to bury you, pay your debts for you, etc. Suicide also doesn't make people desperate enough to lie, cheat, steal, and kill, which still makes it better than hard drugs.
The human body will metabolize that liquor in a few hours. A couple of caffiene pills can help those other people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't meth typically affect a person for a day+? But my point stands: where do you draw the line? Apparently it's after hard drugs, and before murder, but I'd like to know more exactly. You also seem to think that the disappearance of drugs as an illegal asset would collapse gangs. Hasn't history shown this to typically be false? And how much are you charging in taxes?
I think I should also inform you that I'm playing devil's advocate. I won't ever take drugs whether they're legal or not, so it doesn't personally affect me until it's someone else doing something stupid with it, and as a pro-gun rights person I would feel hypocritical being vehemently against legalization of hard drugs.
You see, this is your misconception here. Do you know when the average person is safe to drive after 10 shots of liquor? 10-15 hours afterwards. Do you know what caffeine does for a tired persons driving ability? Provides a placebo making them think they are awake while doing nothing for alertness or reaction time. People across this country are doing apparantly legal things which are stupid and dangerous right now.
The disappearance of bootleg whisky collapsed the whisky smuggling gangs. This would be exactly the same.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
America's obesity epidemic is, as far as I know, a self-discipline/cultural problem, not a 'this food is specifically designed to make you dependent' problem.
So you don't think food companies make their products for maximum appeal along with marketing to make people dependent on said food from childhood?
We have much to talk about young one, in some other thread some day.
Anyway, if you are silly enough to want to hurt yourself then go for it. Inject that heroin, just pay the state enough tax on the stuff to cover your funeral costs.
See, I don't buy this and I'm a habitual cannabis user.
I think that we can all basically agree that alcohol and marijuana are "similar" on the drug scale. They're both safe casually, non-habit forming even when used consistently and with moderation. It's when you start looking at everything "harder" than those that we get to things that ruin lives and are built to create dependence and addiction.
I support the decriminalization and eventual legalization of cannabis, while I cannot support the legalization of "harder" substances due to the aggressive habit-forming substances that make up "harder" stuff. Decriminalization and fines for small amounts, sure.
I wouldn't put marijuana on par with alcohol, alcohol is far more dangerous
America's obesity epidemic is, as far as I know, a self-discipline/cultural problem, not a 'this food is specifically designed to make you dependent' problem.
I'm sure it also has nothing to do with the fact that eating healthy is significantly more expensive than eating nutritional waste. That and time constraints, unless I'm mistaken Americans work a ton of hours and many businesses don't actually give you enough time to eat a proper lunch so you scarf down fast food. As western style fast food becomes more and more present in Japan they are starting to face their own obesity crisis, there's certainly more to it than laziness or lack of self-discipline. That and entertainment, food is cheap and gets you through a miserable day, especially fattening food.
I would think some kind of subsidy for healthier foods would be the quickest and easiest way to help, if you don't mind "SOCIALISM!!!". For me personally, I'd much prefer to eat healthier but I just can't afford it, unless I want to eat stuff that tastes like crap.
America's obesity epidemic is, as far as I know, a self-discipline/cultural problem, not a 'this food is specifically designed to make you dependent' problem.
If you don't think this country's obesity epidemic isn't caused almost entirely by our food production industries, then I have a bridge to sell you. However, that's not really the topic of this thread.
It would stop the demand of these drugs and put the cartels out of buisness.
Or the government could make drugs not illegal. That would work just as well.
I'm wondering if that would actually work as well as we tend to think. The only comparison I know if is the end of Prohibition, and I'm not so sure that's completely analogous. For one, the infrastructure for large scale brewing and distribution had existed legally previously and was able to quickly revive and provide the (now legal) commodity outside of the control of the mob.
That infrastructure never existed for the production and distribution of narcotics, and creating an alternative system for supplying it to market would probably take something close to a civil war at this point, since the cartels are sure to go after any legit entrant into the market. The assumption has been that they would eventually become financially unable to wreak the havoc they are now , right? But that seems to be built on the idea that someone else uses legitimate means to fulfill the now legal demand, and I don't think that's likely to happen very quickly.
Just wanted to address this even though it's several pages back...
Seriously? There are already several obvious entrants, based in the US, that could easilly step in to newly legalized drug markets.
The tobacco industry could switch over some production to marijuana fairly trivially (with the tobacco allotments plummeting it's not even as if you'd have to find field capacity), and big pharm could rather easilly cover the synthetic end, since for the most part they are already making very similar drugs for legal purposes, it would essentially just be a matter of taking the drugs from behind the counter and moving them to be in front of it.
They could have a fully functioning, self-contained industrial scale drug production running in the US within 6 months to a year if for some reason one day they decided to just completely legalize things. Not that that would necessarilly be a good idea (although it would probably be a good idea for marijuana), but it's hardly true that there's no industrial scale production capacity in the US.
Would legalization of certain drugs hurt organized crime? I think so, yes...but not right away. In addition, the transition would be a monumental undertaking, requiring education, regulation, etc. in order to be effective. It's something I'm in favour of, but by no means is it relevant to the Mexico situation IMHO. I don't think any legislation can address a problem of this scale...I really hate to say this, but drastic action is the only thing I think would work, and even if I'm wrong about that, it's the only thing that I can see happening.
America's obesity epidemic is, as far as I know, a self-discipline/cultural problem, not a 'this food is specifically designed to make you dependent' problem.
If you don't think this country's obesity epidemic isn't caused almost entirely by our food production industries, then I have a bridge to sell you. However, that's not really the topic of this thread.
At the same time, there's no chemical dependency, and your unlikely to die if you just stop taking it.
America's obesity epidemic is, as far as I know, a self-discipline/cultural problem, not a 'this food is specifically designed to make you dependent' problem.
If you don't think this country's obesity epidemic isn't caused almost entirely by our food production industries, then I have a bridge to sell you. However, that's not really the topic of this thread.
At the same time, there's no chemical dependency, and your unlikely to die if you just stop taking it.
Again, not something we should be talking about in here, and you are completely wrong.
America's obesity epidemic is, as far as I know, a self-discipline/cultural problem, not a 'this food is specifically designed to make you dependent' problem.
If you don't think this country's obesity epidemic isn't caused almost entirely by our food production industries, then I have a bridge to sell you. However, that's not really the topic of this thread.
At the same time, there's no chemical dependency, and your unlikely to die if you just stop taking it.
Again, not something we should be talking about in here, and you are completely wrong.
There is, in fact, a compelling predisposition towards fatty and salty foods, due to their obscurity in nature. We naturally seek out as much as we can, because our ancestors weren't likely to find very much, and they were likely to die if they didn't eat it.
Is discipline a problem? Yes. Individualism is a double-edged sword- with great power (or accessibility) comes great responsibility (or obesity). Are companies acting in self-interest with little regard for public health? Also yes. We all have valid points here. But this thread is about Mexicans shooting each other.
America's obesity epidemic is, as far as I know, a self-discipline/cultural problem, not a 'this food is specifically designed to make you dependent' problem.
If you don't think this country's obesity epidemic isn't caused almost entirely by our food production industries, then I have a bridge to sell you. However, that's not really the topic of this thread.
At the same time, there's no chemical dependency, and your unlikely to die if you just stop taking it.
Again, not something we should be talking about in here, and you are completely wrong.
There is, in fact, a compelling predisposition towards fatty and salty foods, due to their obscurity in nature. We naturally seek out as much as we can, because our ancestors weren't likely to find very much, and they were likely to die if they didn't eat it.
Is discipline a problem? Yes. Individualism is a double-edged sword- with great power (or accessibility) comes great responsibility (or obesity). Are companies acting in self-interest with little regard for public health? Also yes. We all have valid points here. But this thread is about Mexicans shooting each other.
My peanuts have corn in them. I shit you not. They put fucking corn in my peanuts. These aren't some special flavored peanuts, either; these are dry-roasted, lightly salted peanuts. This isn't a problem with me not trying to eat healthily, this isn't a problem with me eating too much, this is the food production industry putting corn in fucking everything. Corn and its super-simple starches that are what's making everyone in this country fucking fat, because it's not filling, and it's nigh-completely nutritionally void.
If you want to throw down on this, then go make another thread, but while American laziness has contributed to the problem, really the vast majority of the responsibility for it lies with the food production industry, and their desire to maximize profits at the cost of American health.
America's obesity epidemic is, as far as I know, a self-discipline/cultural problem, not a 'this food is specifically designed to make you dependent' problem.
If you don't think this country's obesity epidemic isn't caused almost entirely by our food production industries, then I have a bridge to sell you. However, that's not really the topic of this thread.
At the same time, there's no chemical dependency, and your unlikely to die if you just stop taking it.
Again, not something we should be talking about in here, and you are completely wrong.
There is, in fact, a compelling predisposition towards fatty and salty foods, due to their obscurity in nature. We naturally seek out as much as we can, because our ancestors weren't likely to find very much, and they were likely to die if they didn't eat it.
Is discipline a problem? Yes. Individualism is a double-edged sword- with great power (or accessibility) comes great responsibility (or obesity). Are companies acting in self-interest with little regard for public health? Also yes. We all have valid points here. But this thread is about Mexicans shooting each other.
And goddamn it, you will die if you give up eating altogether. :P
Is there anything the US can do at this point? Even if it was a good idea, which it probably isn't, military intervention is completely out of the question thanks to Afganistan and Iraq. I doubt we can find a good place to flood with money, either.
Posts
NB Argument vastly simplified.
Getting the cartels out of the drug trade is one thing, getting rid of them altogether is another story. They're not going to simply self-destruct, they'll just move on. There's more than just human trafficking, anywhere you have people you have pickings for extortion or numbers or loan-sharking.
People in 1950 didn't buy Al Capone's beer, but they paid dues to Jimmy Hoffa's and Frank Fitzsimmon's union. Just because building construction was legal in New York City didn't keep the mob from retaining a stranglehold over the industry. It wasn't any sort of market competition from legit businesses that forced the mob out of the construction business, but rather 3 decades of the feds chiseling away at them, capo by capo.
And they controlled Las Vegas up through the 1970s, during which time gambling was legal in Nevada. Yet, aside from a brief flight of fancy by Howard Hughes, there were no corporations who wanted any part of Vegas until the FBI de-mobbed it in the 1980s. It was only after that full scale FBI assault, which took out mob leadership in Chicago, Milwaukee, and Kansas City and scared off many other families, that you got legitimate figures like Sam Boyd and Steve Wynn building Vegas into the family-friendly tourist mecca it is today.
The problem is, where do you draw the line? By your same reasoning, you could say: "People are going to shoot other people whether we make it illegal or not. Let's just get rid of murder as a crime and put a huge tax on it." People on hard drugs can be as much a danger to others as they are themselves. While it's impossible to know for sure whether or not legalizing hard drugs would increase DUIs, etc. it's not exactly an unreasonable hypothesis. And I don't want my family to die because some idiot snorted coke before he went off to work.
If you're advocating legalizing all drugs, I say we legalize all weapons. I want some automatic weapons that don't cost a fortune.
yeah, this.
Anyone who tries to justify making hard drugs illegal by comparing the long term health effects to tobacco clearly has never been on a coke binge.
Hard drugs should stay illegal, always. But the punishment for possession shouldn't be jail.
The reason legal drugs are OK and murder isn't is because murder is fundamentally bad for someone who isn't you. You impinged on their right to live. Legalizing drugs won't increase drug usage due to the utter failure of the war on drugs to cut supply, all it will do is mean people don't need to kill and steal to support their drug habits, and that the drugs won't be cut with rat poison or ash.
Its why suicide should be legal, and murder shouldn't be. Suicide impacts only you, murder kills someone else. While suicide can affect other people emotionally, it does not impace any fundamental right that they have. If you drive after taking heroin, its already illegal, we don't need to ban the heroin.
And, considering the coke snorting idiot, what about the guy who took ten shots of Bourbon and was good to drive two hours later? What about the guy who stayed up all night watching a Friends marathon and is totally good to drive? What about the trucker who just drove 8 hours without a break? We already allow plenty of things which might endanger your life on the roads. Heck, most reports say driving tired is worse than driving drunk.
And we'd make so much money from tax and save so much money on enforcement and anti-gang programs that we could easily offset any downside.
Cocaine doesn't really have that many side effects other than addiction. Its the stuff its cut with and the fact its expensive that make it so dangerous. Its why it was the drug of choice for all those 80s stockbrokers. Providing you stay rich and can afford the best, cocaine doesn't prevent you living your life. Its heroin that destroys you, and when people run out of cash they switch to heroin.
Anyway, if you are silly enough to want to hurt yourself then go for it. Inject that heroin, just pay the state enough tax on the stuff to cover your funeral costs.
I mean, legalization is just not a realistic solution to the rampant crime if for no other reason than it does not have enough support either in Mexico or from the US.
I think the consensus is that no act of government can stop the problems unless the amount of cash being recieved by the drug dealers decreases. The war on drugs makes them richer and more ruthless. Until it stops Mexico and the US slums are doomed.
How can any government hope to control an agency who ignores the law totally, is willing to kill, and has more power and influence than it does?
Unless drugs can be removed from the picture then Mexico is on a downward spiral, and the only way to do this is legalization.
What else can the government do? Even with the aid of the US DEA the Cartels still have more money and power than the forces arrayed against them.
I say we do some shock and awe aerial bombing.
Maybe loan them a battle tank division.
Indeed, Mexico is almost two countries at this point. it's like not going to the bay area because you've heard about San Francisco. The drug dealers have no interest in the coastal regions, since they can't grow drugs there. Just take the standard 'I'm on holiday' precautions(keeping passports and IDs safe, keeping some emergency currency, not flashing wallets everywhere) and all will be well.
You criminalize unwanted behavior, its not the using of cocaine thats unwanted, so much as its the actions of a minority of people who while on cocaine act inappropriately. And those same actions are already criminal offences.
Drinking isnt illegal, driving isnt illegal, but put them together and you face heavy fines, possible jail time, and many long term repercussions like permanently lose your license to drive, etc etc.
There's also nothing stopping companies from discriminating against employees that do use recreational LEGAL drugs now. There are companies in some states that will not employ cigarette smokers. So its not like you can claim it will cause some huge hit to business productivity.
Personally, I would prefer for marijuanna and other drugs to remain illegal, but without a good reason to, I dont feel any better than people that oppose Gay Marriage / Abortion. So I'm willing to have it become legal when there isnt a good enough reason not to.
MWO: Adamski
Wasn't that the plot behind Clear and Present Danger?
Does Mexico resemble New Reno from Fallout 2 or something?
Man if only.
Then I'd know where to start my porn career.
Also, for the Amsterdam types there's the fact that a foreign national getting caught with a joint in Mexico is probably going to be doing a few years in a Mexican prison and there's basically SFA they can do about it.
Look at Afghanistan. The full might of the US army arrayed against some poppy growers and still their outputs go up!
Perhaps a enormous effort in conjunction with all the worlds major finance houses to control and sieze their cash might work. Perhaps if their payments to each other and their underlings could be disrupted, prevented and delayed that would work, but the banks would never agree to it.
See, I don't buy this and I'm a habitual cannabis user.
I think that we can all basically agree that alcohol and marijuana are "similar" on the drug scale. They're both safe casually, non-habit forming even when used consistently and with moderation. It's when you start looking at everything "harder" than those that we get to things that ruin lives and are built to create dependence and addiction.
I support the decriminalization and eventual legalization of cannabis, while I cannot support the legalization of "harder" substances due to the aggressive habit-forming substances that make up "harder" stuff. Decriminalization and fines for small amounts, sure.
Afghanistan is all far away and shit though.
Mexico is right next to us, no need to worry about getting permission to operate in foreign countries or the like.
Plus we have way more Spanish translators.
But they are only hurting themselves directly, and the drugs being illegal has totally failed to stop them getting it.
Legal - Taxation, no more destroying Mexico and the inner cities, power of gangs broken
Illegal - No taxation, Mexico and inner cities destroyed, gangs rampant, equal number of deaths from drugs, massive costs and police with no time for real crimes.
I mean, I wouldn't let Heroin be sold in stores. I'd advocate just having clinics. You go, you pay your money and you take your hard drugs right there. You then stay for a while, recover, and leave.
That right there is your logical fallacy. For one, it is impossible to know what would happen in such an instance; there's too many unknown variables. For what it's worth though, my local area's war on drugs over the last 20 years has been highly effective. I can't speak for other places, and I don't live in an inner city or anything, but I can all but promise you that drug use where I live would increase if it were legal.
Suicide can affect others. Other people have to pay to bury you, pay your debts for you, etc. Suicide also doesn't make people desperate enough to lie, cheat, steal, and kill, which still makes it better than hard drugs.
The human body will metabolize that liquor in a few hours. A couple of caffiene pills can help those other people. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't meth typically affect a person for a day+? But my point stands: where do you draw the line? Apparently it's after hard drugs, and before murder, but I'd like to know more exactly. You also seem to think that the disappearance of drugs as an illegal asset would collapse gangs. Hasn't history shown this to typically be false? And how much are you charging in taxes?
I think I should also inform you that I'm playing devil's advocate. I won't ever take drugs whether they're legal or not, so it doesn't personally affect me until it's someone else doing something stupid with it, and as a pro-gun rights person I would feel hypocritical being vehemently against legalization of hard drugs.
If inequality is your issue, then you can axe most exotic vacations people take. China? India? Ye-no.
Again, you're fucked in most of the rest of the world if you're a stoner and you can't bring yourself to go without. Get caught with a joint in Egypt? Yeah, have fun.
And then you come back. And back. And back. And start ruining your health. Eventually, ruining your health enough, the state is forced to take care of you, spending a lot of money on your ass.
Or they put limits on the amount you can get. But that's not enough for you. So you start obtaining drugs by illegal means, which - as it turns out - is on-the-surface cheaper and 'better' than the government stuff. So you start using it more and more. And suddenly illegal drugs are back in business.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Hey you just described America's obesity epidemic!
So, when do you wanna go help me protest fast food restaurants?
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Who cares about drug use? All we should care about is drug abuse.
Much of the willingness to lie, cheat, steal and kill is due to the illegal nature of the substance. People tend to be a lot less overtly dangerous when they can feed their addictions without having to deal with criminal elements. I mean drunk driving is bad, but it is less bad than drunk driving and rum running gangs having turf wars.
What line? Murder isn't the same as drug use. In one case you are ingesting an intoxicant, in the other you are ending a human life. Why are we even drawing parellels? The differences are manifest. Plus you can still make actions involving intoxicants illegal if you desire, as we do already.
Also, it isn't about collapsing gangs, it is about reducing their effectiveness. Sure gangs in Mexico won't vanish into the aether, but a large portion of their revenue stream will be cut off and the resulting crime will likely be more localized and less brutal than the current situation. It isn't about making some new world order filled with rainbows and sunshine, but rather minimizing harm. The rum running gangs and brutal violence of the 20's and 30's largely disappeared with the end of prohibition. So I'd say that the historical record by far supports the position that legalization will diminish the influence of the cartels.
Swiss voters back £14m-a-year health scheme to give addicts free heroin
Sure, people still bootleg moonshine after prohibition. But it isn't a major source of revenue for the mob like it was when it was illegal and they could charge much more. Similarly, it seems that decreasing America's reliance on foreign drugs would have a very detrimental effect on foreign criminal organizations.
It's not designed to, but with some people it definitely does.
You see, this is your misconception here. Do you know when the average person is safe to drive after 10 shots of liquor? 10-15 hours afterwards. Do you know what caffeine does for a tired persons driving ability? Provides a placebo making them think they are awake while doing nothing for alertness or reaction time. People across this country are doing apparantly legal things which are stupid and dangerous right now.
The disappearance of bootleg whisky collapsed the whisky smuggling gangs. This would be exactly the same.
So you don't think food companies make their products for maximum appeal along with marketing to make people dependent on said food from childhood?
We have much to talk about young one, in some other thread some day.
I wouldn't put marijuana on par with alcohol, alcohol is far more dangerous
I'm sure it also has nothing to do with the fact that eating healthy is significantly more expensive than eating nutritional waste. That and time constraints, unless I'm mistaken Americans work a ton of hours and many businesses don't actually give you enough time to eat a proper lunch so you scarf down fast food. As western style fast food becomes more and more present in Japan they are starting to face their own obesity crisis, there's certainly more to it than laziness or lack of self-discipline. That and entertainment, food is cheap and gets you through a miserable day, especially fattening food.
I would think some kind of subsidy for healthier foods would be the quickest and easiest way to help, if you don't mind "SOCIALISM!!!". For me personally, I'd much prefer to eat healthier but I just can't afford it, unless I want to eat stuff that tastes like crap.
Just wanted to address this even though it's several pages back...
Seriously? There are already several obvious entrants, based in the US, that could easilly step in to newly legalized drug markets.
The tobacco industry could switch over some production to marijuana fairly trivially (with the tobacco allotments plummeting it's not even as if you'd have to find field capacity), and big pharm could rather easilly cover the synthetic end, since for the most part they are already making very similar drugs for legal purposes, it would essentially just be a matter of taking the drugs from behind the counter and moving them to be in front of it.
They could have a fully functioning, self-contained industrial scale drug production running in the US within 6 months to a year if for some reason one day they decided to just completely legalize things. Not that that would necessarilly be a good idea (although it would probably be a good idea for marijuana), but it's hardly true that there's no industrial scale production capacity in the US.
At the same time, there's no chemical dependency, and your unlikely to die if you just stop taking it.
Is discipline a problem? Yes. Individualism is a double-edged sword- with great power (or accessibility) comes great responsibility (or obesity). Are companies acting in self-interest with little regard for public health? Also yes. We all have valid points here. But this thread is about Mexicans shooting each other.
If you want to throw down on this, then go make another thread, but while American laziness has contributed to the problem, really the vast majority of the responsibility for it lies with the food production industry, and their desire to maximize profits at the cost of American health.
And goddamn it, you will die if you give up eating altogether. :P
Is there anything the US can do at this point? Even if it was a good idea, which it probably isn't, military intervention is completely out of the question thanks to Afganistan and Iraq. I doubt we can find a good place to flood with money, either.