Clinton Admits US Blame on Drugs

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Oh, so the U.S. is the only country in the world with laws controlling or prohibiting the sale, distribution and possession of cocaine, Huh?
[/quote]

No, but I don’t think Mexico is terribly useful as a conduit for smuggling drugs into Europe. Or really, anywhere but the US.

In a word, yes. In this country, there was absolutely demand for cocaine before it became illegal. When it was prohibited, the demand did not vanish, so businessmen chose to fill the demand, becoming criminals*. Since the product was illegal, they had no legal recourse to settle disputes, and had to resort to violence. The same pattern can be seen during the prohibition of alcohol.

Let’s assume that the US prohibited cocaine out of a concern for public health, as is the claim, and let’s further assume that the government had the right to do so.

It has become clear that prohibition does not decrease demand substantially, but does decrease tax revenues, increase violence associated with the trade in cocaine, and increase the profits of violent criminal enterprises. Those criminal enterprises are so rich, in fact, that they are more powerful than most South and Central American governments.

So, even though the law is not effective at it’s stated purpose and creates dangerous instability in nations with which we claim to be allied, we as a country have yet to seriously examine repealing prohibition.

That is why the US is at least partially to blame. The fact that both of my initial assumptions are bogus just makes us more culpable.

*As I understand it, you want to blame the businessmen for stepping up to fulfill that demand illegally. We might as well blame the coca plants for producing cocaine precursors. As long as there is demand, there will be supply. I’m not arguing that the cartels are not responsible for their actions, but rather that the existence of the cartels was not only foreseeable, but preventable.

So, it’s the fault of the Mexican government for trying to stop the cartels? Most of the governments in that region are fighting our drug war at our behest, with our money and support.

If the Mexican government suddenly decided to legalize cocaine, what do you think the US would do? I can’t even imagine the massive shitstorm they would find themselves in, courtesy of us.

42

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
listen numbnuts you stated that ‘they grow the cocoa’ I was just pointing out that you are wrong.

No, you misread. And that is being generous.

[/quote]

So you are denying that you wrote this? Did someone kidnap your computer?

There really is no point trying to debate this point with you, you have been rude, aggressive and are clearly not very knowledgeable about the subject.

I freely admit their are plenty of problems in Mexico however the press in the US is laughable in their approach to the drugs problem.

Incidentally, if you can’t do business in a country where the criminal organisations are stronger than the government, how the hell has the US been managing for all of these years?

43

Man, I’m tired of seeing that saddle bag sporting bitch everywhere. Someone knock that bitch up, dress her in some daisy dukes, put her in a XL I’m with stupid t-shirt on her, and put her barefoot in a kitchen in some trailer park in Arkansas

44

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Oh, so the U.S. is the only country in the world with laws controlling or prohibiting the sale, distribution and possession of cocaine, Huh?

No, but I don’t think Mexico is terribly useful as a conduit for smuggling drugs into Europe. Or really, anywhere but the US.

And it’s Our politics, Huh?

In a word, yes. In this country, there was absolutely demand for cocaine before it became illegal. When it was prohibited, the demand did not vanish, so businessmen chose to fill the demand, becoming criminals*. Since the product was illegal, they had no legal recourse to settle disputes, and had to resort to violence. The same pattern can be seen during the prohibition of alcohol.

Let’s assume that the US prohibited cocaine out of a concern for public health, as is the claim, and let’s further assume that the government had the right to do so.

It has become clear that prohibition does not decrease demand substantially, but does decrease tax revenues, increase violence associated with the trade in cocaine, and increase the profits of violent criminal enterprises. Those criminal enterprises are so rich, in fact, that they are more powerful than most South and Central American governments.

So, even though the law is not effective at it’s stated purpose and creates dangerous instability in nations with which we claim to be allied, we as a country have yet to seriously examine repealing prohibition.

That is why the US is at least partially to blame. The fact that both of my initial assumptions are bogus just makes us more culpable.

*As I understand it, you want to blame the businessmen for stepping up to fulfill that demand illegally. We might as well blame the coca plants for producing cocaine precursors. As long as there is demand, there will be supply. I’m not arguing that the cartels are not responsible for their actions, but rather that the existence of the cartels was not only foreseeable, but preventable.

How about Mexicos?

It is their govenrment police force enforcing thier own laws and their own political views.

So, it’s the fault of the Mexican government for trying to stop the cartels? Most of the governments in that region are fighting our drug war at our behest, with our money and support.

If the Mexican government suddenly decided to legalize cocaine, what do you think the US would do? I can’t even imagine the massive shitstorm they would find themselves in, courtesy of us.
[/quote]

You are right, and I can not believe America does not understand we are paying for both sides of this war. How stupid is that?

45

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Oh, so the U.S. is the only country in the world with laws controlling or prohibiting the sale, distribution and possession of cocaine, Huh?

No, but I don’t think Mexico is terribly useful as a conduit for smuggling drugs into Europe. Or really, anywhere but the US.

And it’s Our politics, Huh?

In a word, yes. In this country, there was absolutely demand for cocaine before it became illegal. When it was prohibited, the demand did not vanish, so businessmen chose to fill the demand, becoming criminals*. Since the product was illegal, they had no legal recourse to settle disputes, and had to resort to violence. The same pattern can be seen during the prohibition of alcohol.

Let’s assume that the US prohibited cocaine out of a concern for public health, as is the claim, and let’s further assume that the government had the right to do so.

It has become clear that prohibition does not decrease demand substantially, but does decrease tax revenues, increase violence associated with the trade in cocaine, and increase the profits of violent criminal enterprises. Those criminal enterprises are so rich, in fact, that they are more powerful than most South and Central American governments.

So, even though the law is not effective at it’s stated purpose and creates dangerous instability in nations with which we claim to be allied, we as a country have yet to seriously examine repealing prohibition.

That is why the US is at least partially to blame. The fact that both of my initial assumptions are bogus just makes us more culpable.

*As I understand it, you want to blame the businessmen for stepping up to fulfill that demand illegally. We might as well blame the coca plants for producing cocaine precursors. As long as there is demand, there will be supply. I’m not arguing that the cartels are not responsible for their actions, but rather that the existence of the cartels was not only foreseeable, but preventable.

How about Mexicos?

It is their govenrment police force enforcing thier own laws and their own political views.

So, it’s the fault of the Mexican government for trying to stop the cartels? Most of the governments in that region are fighting our drug war at our behest, with our money and support.

If the Mexican government suddenly decided to legalize cocaine, what do you think the US would do? I can’t even imagine the massive shitstorm they would find themselves in, courtesy of us.

You are right, and I can not believe America does not understand we are paying for both sides of this war. How stupid is that?

[/quote]

You only want to pay for one side of a war.

46

[quote]tom63 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
tom8658 wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Oh, so the U.S. is the only country in the world with laws controlling or prohibiting the sale, distribution and possession of cocaine, Huh?

No, but I don’t think Mexico is terribly useful as a conduit for smuggling drugs into Europe. Or really, anywhere but the US.

And it’s Our politics, Huh?

In a word, yes. In this country, there was absolutely demand for cocaine before it became illegal. When it was prohibited, the demand did not vanish, so businessmen chose to fill the demand, becoming criminals*. Since the product was illegal, they had no legal recourse to settle disputes, and had to resort to violence. The same pattern can be seen during the prohibition of alcohol.

Let’s assume that the US prohibited cocaine out of a concern for public health, as is the claim, and let’s further assume that the government had the right to do so.

It has become clear that prohibition does not decrease demand substantially, but does decrease tax revenues, increase violence associated with the trade in cocaine, and increase the profits of violent criminal enterprises. Those criminal enterprises are so rich, in fact, that they are more powerful than most South and Central American governments.

So, even though the law is not effective at it’s stated purpose and creates dangerous instability in nations with which we claim to be allied, we as a country have yet to seriously examine repealing prohibition.

That is why the US is at least partially to blame. The fact that both of my initial assumptions are bogus just makes us more culpable.

*As I understand it, you want to blame the businessmen for stepping up to fulfill that demand illegally. We might as well blame the coca plants for producing cocaine precursors. As long as there is demand, there will be supply. I’m not arguing that the cartels are not responsible for their actions, but rather that the existence of the cartels was not only foreseeable, but preventable.

How about Mexicos?

It is their govenrment police force enforcing thier own laws and their own political views.

So, it’s the fault of the Mexican government for trying to stop the cartels? Most of the governments in that region are fighting our drug war at our behest, with our money and support.

If the Mexican government suddenly decided to legalize cocaine, what do you think the US would do? I can’t even imagine the massive shitstorm they would find themselves in, courtesy of us.

You are right, and I can not believe America does not understand we are paying for both sides of this war. How stupid is that?

You only want to pay for one side of a war.
[/quote]

I do not want to pay for any side of this war