The drug war has rattled the cage of the cartels: drug seizures are up, cartel leaders like Beltran-Leyva are getting killed off, cartels are getting fractured into smaller cartels as was done to the Columbian cartels... and they are responding with violence.
What would you do to dismantle such cartels as would murder the family of a Navy officer involved in the succesful hunting down of a cartel leader Arturo Beltran Leyva?
Some suggestions have been made so far including legalizing marijuana. Details?
Other suggestions?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIn Portugal, hard drugs have been decriminalized (not legalized), i.e. you cannot get a prison sentence for drug use. The Wikipedia article on Portugese drug policy says:
Obviously legalization would dismantle them instantly. I'm definitely for legalizing marijuana and I lean toward keeping the hard stuff illegal. If I could be sold that legalizing the hard drugs would not increase usage I'd be for that as well.
"Research commissioned by the libertarian Cato Institute, which advocates decriminalization,[9] and led by Glenn Greenwald, found that in the five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled, while usage in the EU continued to increase, including in states with "hard-line drug policies."[3]
However, Peter Reuther, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, College Park, while conceding that Portuguese decriminalization met its central goal of stopping the rise in drug use, suggests that the heroin usage rates and related deaths may have been due to the cyclical nature of drug epidemics.[10]
Since Portugal's policy reform in 2001, the rates of overdoses and HIV cases have been reduced significantly.[11][12][13]"
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperhole-e cow! we actually agree on something!
Obviously legalization would dismantle them instantly. I'm definitely for legalizing marijuana and I lean toward keeping the hard stuff illegal. If I could be sold that legalizing the hard drugs would not increase usage I'd be for that as well.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAs ever, the Portuguese experiment is a good place to start. They decriminalised possession of all drugs for personal use in 2001 (amongst other measures), and follow-up research suggests that "five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled, while usage in the EU continued to increase, including in states with "hard-line drug policies."" (Wikipedia also notes that the heroin stats may be due to natural cycles.)
If I could be sold that legalizing the hard drugs would not increase usage I'd be for that as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal
links to Cato Institute research here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHa!
In Portugal, hard drugs have been decriminalized (not legalized), i.e. you cannot get a prison sentence for drug use. The Wikipedia article on Portugese drug policy says:
"Research commissioned by the libertarian Cato Institute, which advocates decriminalization,[9] and led by Glenn Greenwald, found that in the five years after the start of decrimina ...[text shortened]... in 2001, the rates of overdoses and HIV cases have been reduced significantly.[11][12][13]"
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraStunning stats!😲
In Portugal, hard drugs have been decriminalized (not legalized), i.e. you cannot get a prison sentence for drug use. The Wikipedia article on Portugese drug policy says:
"Research commissioned by the libertarian Cato Institute, which advocates decriminalization,[9] and led by Glenn Greenwald, found that in the five years after the start of decrimina in 2001, the rates of overdoses and HIV cases have been reduced significantly.[11][12][13]"
Interesting how 'Trooper, UDragon, KN, and myself seem to agree on this libertarian policy. :big SEG:
Ooops, I forgot to include Dr. K.😳
Originally posted by monster truckI'm not quite Libertarian on the issue, as I'm a fence sitter with the hard drugs.
Stunning stats!😲
Interesting how 'Trooper, UDragon, KN, and myself seem to agree on this libertarian policy. :big SEG:
Ooops, I forgot to include Dr. K.😳
How about decriminalizing all drugs for personal use, but still bust dealers? That might not have an affect on usage but it would sure cut down on prison overpopulation.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperFence sitting duly noted and understood.
I'm not quite Libertarian on the issue, as I'm a fence sitter with the hard drugs.
How about decriminalizing all drugs for personal use, but still bust dealers? That might not have an affect on usage but it would sure cut down on prison overpopulation.
Legalizing all drugs is a tough pill for me to swallow as well.
I would hope that education would have some affect on usage.
Introducing a few crack whores or users suffering from DT into the classroom would be a reality check for those considering drug use.
Originally posted by monster truckYes, I've been saying for a while that in a multi-party system, there would be plenty of room in the U.S. political spectrum for a libertarian-ish party with significant influence.
Stunning stats!😲
Interesting how 'Trooper, UDragon, KN, and myself seem to agree on this libertarian policy. :big SEG:
Ooops, I forgot to include Dr. K.😳
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou know what's awesome about that idea? It would make the Dems a sure lock every election. 🙂
Yes, I've been saying for a while that in a multi-party system, there would be plenty of room in the U.S. political spectrum for a libertarian-ish party with significant influence.
Sorry, but it's true.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWe already have a multiparty system. Unfortunately the two big parties have divided the country so much nobody wants to risk the "other guy" winning. Without a shadow of a doubt Ralph Nader gave the Presidency to George Bush, and he only took tiny amount of votes. I haven't crunched the numbers, but some Republicans argue Ross Perot gave the Presidency to Clinton.
Well, a multi-party system would also make room for a Green Party of some sorts, for those Bay Area types.
The fear factor keeps the numbers dismal for any third party candidate.
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperNot really, any FPtP system will ensure a third party is marginalized. With proportional representation, the LibDems in the UK would be in a hung cabinet with either main party just about every election, but in the current system they have minimal power.
We already have a multiparty system. Unfortunately the two big parties have divided the country so much nobody wants to risk the "other guy" winning. Without a shadow of a doubt Ralph Nader gave the Presidency to George Bush, and he only took tiny amount of votes. I haven't crunched the numbers, but some Republicans argue Ross Perot gave the Presidency to Clinton.
The fear factor keeps the numbers dismal for any third party candidate.
In our parliament 11 parties are represented, which ensures that most people can pick a party fairly close to their own ideology (in my case, the social liberal party).
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut I'm talking about the US political climate. We've had two big parties for so long most of the country already has a line drawn in the sand. And people who identify with left or right tend to view the other side with disdain. So most people refuse to vote for an alternate ticket for fear of the "other guy" winning.
Not really, any FPtP system will ensure a third party is marginalized. With proportional representation, the LibDems in the UK would be in a hung cabinet with either main party just about every election, but in the current system they have minimal power.
In our parliament 11 parties are represented, which ensures that most people can pick a party fairly close to their own ideology (in my case, the social liberal party).
If not for the Bush factor I guarantee Ralph Nader would have gotten a lot more votes. And I hate to say it, but thank God for Bush because Nader is an idiot.