PDA

View Full Version : Hezbollah Working with Cartels



djones520
02-21-2011, 04:53 PM
Yep... phony War on Drugs alright. :rolleyes: I'm half tempted to break my "No politics" rule for facebook to show this to all my pot head friends.


Hezbollah are absolute masters at identifying existing smuggling infrastructures," says former DEA Chief of Operations Mike Braun, adding that the group "is developing relations with those responsible for operating those smuggling operations and then forming close relations with them, so that they can move anything they have an interest into virtually anywhere in the world." That comment comes from former DEA Chief of Operations Mike Braun. He goes on to tell me that the Middle East terror group is "rubbing shoulders" with drug cartels around the globe.

My military and Department of Homeland Security contacts are insistent...it's not if Hezbollah operatives have been smuggled into the U.S....but how many? They note that drug tunnels are becoming much more sophisticated and striking similar as tunnels being used by terror organizations to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip. My contacts also say they have real concern that bombing techniques used in the Middle East to promote terror are now also being used inside Mexico, as the cartels war with each other and anyone in their way.

This comes as Mexican authorities busted a senior Hezbollah operative who employed Mexicans nationals with family ties to Lebanon to set up the network, designed to target Israel and the West, according to multiple reports. The man's name is Jameel Nasr and he was arrested after a Mexican surveillance operation revealed that he traveled frequently to Lebanon to receive information and instructions from Hezbollah commanders and he also spent several months in Venezuela working with the terror group and Hugo Chavez's people.

Meantime, over this past weekend President Calderon of Mexico sent a significant number of troops to the border regions and while they are there to help battle the cartels, they have also been sent to deal with the growing connection to Hezbollah. As one contact told me, "Mexico knows the seriousness of a cartel connection with Hezbollah and the threat to their national security."

We also know from DHS documents that over 180,000 illegal aliens from countries Other than Mexico were apprehended from 2007 through mid-March 2010 and the State Department Country Reports on Terrorism said that "smuggling rings have been detected moving people from East Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia". I am told these people and drugs are then moved up through Central America and into the Unites States through Mexico.



http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/02/21/hezbollah-working-with-cartels/?test=latestnews

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 05:03 PM
US Drug policy indirectly funnels drug profits to the black market. Sometimes it is necessary for society to ban certain substances but not marijuana. It's relatively harmless and there is so much profit in it. Last I checked it's around $10 billion a year that goes to drug cartels from marijuana alone.

Every policy has unintended consequences and this is one of the unintended consequences of prohibition, especially with a very popular drug with some level of social acceptance. People will consume marijuana, it's not that big of a deal, but if it's illegal most of the profits go to the bad guys.

This stupid failed war on marijuana is causing the problems these guys are hired to solve, there are lots of DEA employees who's well-paying jobs depend on marijuana prohibition, no matter how detrimental it's side effects are.

djones520
02-21-2011, 05:16 PM
134 tons of Marijuana was burned in Tijuana in October. Wonder how much that was worth. Billions worth more are seized every year coming from these people supplying the terrorists that we are fighting. And you think the problem will get better if we let that cash flow get easier for them?

Stop smoking this shit, it's messing your head up.

Wei Wu Wei
02-21-2011, 05:47 PM
134 tons of Marijuana was burned in Tijuana in October. Wonder how much that was worth. Billions worth more are seized every year coming from these people supplying the terrorists that we are fighting. And you think the problem will get better if we let that cash flow get easier for them?

Stop smoking this shit, it's messing your head up.

You are assuming that if it were legal people would still buy marijuana from the black market. That's absurd.

As California shows, in some counties where medicinal use is legal, people buy most of their marijuana from local dispensaries.

Marijuana can be grown anywhere, and is often grown indoors. The only reason this cash flow leads to the cartels is because law-abiding business owners cannot participate in the market.

Cartels profit from black market drugs because they are on the black market, if they are on the open legit market they cannot control the trade. This is obvious. The marginal dangers of marijuana use pale in comparison to the social and economic consequences of prohibiting it.

djones520
02-21-2011, 05:55 PM
You are assuming that if it were legal people would still buy marijuana from the black market. That's absurd.

As California shows, in some counties where medicinal use is legal, people buy most of their marijuana from local dispensaries.

Marijuana can be grown anywhere, and is often grown indoors. The only reason this cash flow leads to the cartels is because law-abiding business owners cannot participate in the market.

Cartels profit from black market drugs because they are on the black market, if they are on the open legit market they cannot control the trade. This is obvious. The marginal dangers of marijuana use pale in comparison to the social and economic consequences of prohibiting it.

Take a look at how organized crime works here in America, and get back to me. :rolleyes:

The cartels are the biggest providers. They are not going to shrivel up and die because it becomes legal, to think so is the absurd notion. They'll just shift their operations making sure that their product gets onto the open market,

Odysseus
02-21-2011, 06:00 PM
US Drug policy indirectly funnels drug profits to the black market. Sometimes it is necessary for society to ban certain substances but not marijuana. It's relatively harmless and there is so much profit in it. Last I checked it's around $10 billion a year that goes to drug cartels from marijuana alone.

Every policy has unintended consequences and this is one of the unintended consequences of prohibition, especially with a very popular drug with some level of social acceptance. People will consume marijuana, it's not that big of a deal, but if it's illegal most of the profits go to the bad guys.

This stupid failed war on marijuana is causing the problems these guys are hired to solve, there are lots of DEA employees who's well-paying jobs depend on marijuana prohibition, no matter how detrimental it's side effects are.

Okay, so we legalize pot, grow it in the US, and then have Mexican migrant workers come across the border to pick the crops? :rolleyes:

JB
02-21-2011, 07:41 PM
Okay, so we legalize pot, grow it in the US, and then have Mexican migrant workers come across the border to pick the crops? :rolleyes:No, you implement "pick 10 smoke 1".

That is, you take an ad out on DU that says, "pick 10 pounds of pot and then pick 1 pound for yourself." There will be high turnover but the supply (of DUmmies) is almost limitless. :D

Put me down in the make it legal category. Based strictly on empirical evidence it's less harmless than booze as far as I am concerned.

wilbur
02-21-2011, 10:36 PM
There's no denying that prohibition started the arms race that created the cartels.

Its naive to think the cartels will just vanish with legalization... but unless we completely fubar drug reform, there's no way it can't affect them. They have to spend money to fund their little armies and high tech smuggling operations.... those are some big expenses that legal businesses do not have.

So maybe, gradually, we can see them diminish, with good, proper, full-stop legalization. The free market can solve this problem.

PoliCon
02-21-2011, 10:54 PM
It's relatively harmless and there is so much profit in it. So do you wanna ride on a public bus with a pot smoker driving it? Or what about having a pot smoker driving tanker trucks full of gas or acid or some other volatile chemical? :rolleyes:


dumbass fucking potheads. :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-21-2011, 11:04 PM
So do you wanna ride on a public bus with a pot smoker driving it? Or what about having a pot smoker driving tanker trucks full of gas or acid or some other volatile chemical? :rolleyes:

dumbass fucking potheads. :rolleyes:

Alcohol. That is all.

PoliCon
02-21-2011, 11:11 PM
Alcohol. That is all.

So because one exists we should legalize the other? Wow. That's some fine reasoning there wilbur. OH - and there are tests to screen for alcohol on the spot. Are there spot tests for pot? No. That is all.


stupid fucking potheads. :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-22-2011, 12:01 AM
So because one exists we should legalize the other?

Well... actually.... they should both be legal because making them illegal creates rich warlords who engage with us in dangerous smuggling arms races. Warlards who are now possibly doing business with terrorists who have interests in their methods...



That's some fine reasoning there wilbur. OH - and there are tests to screen for alcohol on the spot. Are there spot tests for pot? No. That is all.

stupid fucking potheads. :rolleyes:

Its not MY reasoning going off the rocker here - you've got at least two completely unsubstantiated assumptions that you're working off here... then you proceed to insult those who don't find your wild presumptions to be as self-evident as you do.

Unsubstantiated assumptions:

1) Legalization will increase consumption significantly
2) Prohibition somehow does something to prevent people who drive trucks full of acid from driving high.
3) If pot is legalized, people will drive while high because there is no test to detect THC on the spot, but if pot prohibition continues less people will drive high... because there is no test to detect THC on the spot?!?
4) That I am a pothead

Oh, and:

http://www.drugalcoholtest.com/Oral-Drug-Tests-p-1-c-254.html

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 12:28 AM
Well... actually.... they should both be legal because making them illegal creates rich warlords who engage with us in dangerous smuggling arms races. Warlards who are now possibly doing business with terrorists who have interests in their methods...



Its not MY reasoning going off the rocker here - you've got at least two completely unsubstantiated assumptions that you're working off here... then you proceed to insult those who don't find your wild presumptions to be as self-evident as you do.

Unsubstantiated assumptions:

1) Legalization will increase consumption significantly
2) Prohibition somehow does something to prevent people who drive trucks full of acid from driving high.
3) If pot is legalized, people will drive while high because there is no test to detect THC on the spot, but if pot prohibition continues less people will drive high... because there is no test to detect THC on the spot?!?
4) That I am a pothead

Oh, and:

http://www.drugalcoholtest.com/Oral-Drug-Tests-p-1-c-254.html
How much do you smoke in a week.

wilbur
02-22-2011, 12:48 AM
How much do you smoke in a week.

Per week, I smoke exactly.....












none.

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 12:51 AM
Per week, I smoke exactly.....












none.

Why not if there is nothing wrong with it?

wilbur
02-22-2011, 08:04 AM
Why not if there is nothing wrong with it?

I don't like it.

txradioguy
02-22-2011, 08:15 AM
Well... actually.... they should both be legal because making them illegal creates rich warlords who engage with us in dangerous smuggling arms races. Warlards who are now possibly doing business with terrorists who have interests in their methods...

You know for someone who clames they don't smoke weed...your version of "logic' makes people think otherwise.




Its not MY reasoning going off the rocker here - you've got at least two completely unsubstantiated assumptions that you're working off here... then you proceed to insult those who don't find your wild presumptions to be as self-evident as you do.

Unsubstantiated assumptions:

1) Legalization will increase consumption significantly
2) Prohibition somehow does something to prevent people who drive trucks full of acid from driving high.
3) If pot is legalized, people will drive while high because there is no test to detect THC on the spot, but if pot prohibition continues less people will drive high... because there is no test to detect THC on the spot?!?
4) That I am a pothead

How exactly are they Unsubstantiated claims? Because you said so?




Oh, and:

http://www.drugalcoholtest.com/Oral-Drug-Tests-p-1-c-254.html

:rolleyes:

wilbur
02-22-2011, 08:38 AM
You know for someone who clames they don't smoke weed...your version of "logic' makes people think otherwise.

As always, your insight on matters of logic is appreciated, TX-"Homosexuality exists, therefore evolution is false"-Radioguy.



How exactly are they Unsubstantiated claims? Because you said so?


Because he didnt substantiate them.

And as it just so happens, this is an issue I've done a fair bit of research on myself. Anyone who does the same will run across no shortage of evidence which suggests that legality or illegality just isnt a big part of most people's decision to take or abstain from drugs, and this reality is reflected in drug usage rates around the world.

FBIGuy
02-22-2011, 09:21 AM
Well... actually.... they should both be legal because making them illegal creates rich warlords who engage with us in dangerous smuggling arms races. Warlards who are now possibly doing business with terrorists who have interests in their methods...



Its not MY reasoning going off the rocker here - you've got at least two completely unsubstantiated assumptions that you're working off here... then you proceed to insult those who don't find your wild presumptions to be as self-evident as you do.

Unsubstantiated assumptions:

1) Legalization will increase consumption significantly
2) Prohibition somehow does something to prevent people who drive trucks full of acid from driving high.
3) If pot is legalized, people will drive while high because there is no test to detect THC on the spot, but if pot prohibition continues less people will drive high... because there is no test to detect THC on the spot?!?
4) That I am a pothead

Oh, and:

http://www.drugalcoholtest.com/Oral-Drug-Tests-p-1-c-254.html


So you are saying that because some people profit from marijuana being illegal then we should make it legal? Redefining a criminal as a businessman eliminates the problem. Do you realize that this is what you are saying?

AmPat
02-22-2011, 09:27 AM
So you are saying that because some people profit from marijuana being illegal then we should make it legal? Redefining a criminal as a businessman eliminates the problem. Do you realize that this is what you are saying?

Sounds about right. Society will embrace these new paragons of virtue and appreciate their tax contributions. Church membership will skyrocket. I can't wait for those unintended consequences. Even more entertaining will be all the apologetics from the liberals who try to explain how the increased death rate on our roads and increased usage isn't due to legalization. :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-22-2011, 09:53 AM
So you are saying that because some people profit from marijuana being illegal then we should make it legal?

I don't believe that's what I said at all. I'm saying BAD people profit so immensely from marijuana BECAUSE it is illegal - just like Al Capone profited from bootlegging BECAUSE it was illegal. And if that's the case, certainly we should at least entertain the idea that legalization might help mitigate the problem. Prohibition caused these things, its pretty clear.

Weigh the costs vs the benefits...



Redefining a criminal as a businessman eliminates the problem. Do you realize that this is what you are saying?

Nor does defining the use of a particular substance as criminal make it evil, detrimental, unhealthy or innately immoral. Marijuana of all things NEVER should have been criminalized.

Quite frankly, I've never heard a single good reason, backed by evidence and research, that should compel us to prohibit the buying, selling, and consuming of marijuana. We gain nothing for it, and lose a whole lot more.

wilbur
02-22-2011, 09:57 AM
Sounds about right. Society will embrace these new paragons of virtue and appreciate their tax contributions. Church membership will skyrocket. I can't wait for those unintended consequences. Even more entertaining will be all the apologetics from the liberals who try to explain how the increased death rate on our roads and increased usage isn't due to legalization. :rolleyes:

It aint just the liberals... libertarians generally have this issue right too.

Lager
02-22-2011, 10:00 AM
The point is almost moot with marijuana, as more and more of it becomes available here in the good ole' USA. (Buy American!). But that still leaves far more dangerous drugs being run by cartels, and although I might agree with legalization of weed, the same argument for legalization of cocaine or heroin etc., would be weaker.

PoliCon
02-22-2011, 10:51 AM
when the welfare state is dismantled - I'll support legalization. Until then - fuck the potheads.

Odysseus
02-22-2011, 11:20 AM
The point is almost moot with marijuana, as more and more of it becomes available here in the good ole' USA. (Buy American!). But that still leaves far more dangerous drugs being run by cartels, and although I might agree with legalization of weed, the same argument for legalization of cocaine or heroin etc., would be weaker.

The issue isn't drugs, it's border security. After the end of Prohibition, the Italian mobs stayed out of the drug trade for several decades, but still managed to do very well in other areas, such as racketeering, unions, prostitution, gambling, extortion and theft. The cartels have a few less options, as most states have legal gambling, private sector unions are too well-established to be vulnerable and are already more corrupt than the gangs, but that leaves a host of opportunities for them. They are smuggling more than just drugs, for example; they traffic people, weapons and anything else that's worth more on one side of the border than the other. Legalizing drugs won't make the problem go away. Transporting illegals is too lucrative, and the trafficking of women for prostitution is another cartel revenue stream. The preponderence of illegals in the construction trades gives the gangs an easily victimized group of workers that they can control. It would be very easy for a cartel to interpose itself as the "patron" of those laborers, just as unions used to do. Contractors would not be able to avoid using cartel labor without risking "accidents", again, just like the unions did.

The only way to defeat the cartels is to secure the borders. They make their money by their access to America, and if that is cut off, they will wither and die.

The fact that terrorists are using the cartels to infiltrate just demonstrates the critical national security issues that are at stake here.

FBIGuy
02-22-2011, 01:34 PM
Originally Posted by FBIGuy View Post
So you are saying that because some people profit from marijuana being illegal then we should make it legal?

I don't believe that's what I said at all. I'm saying BAD people profit so immensely from marijuana BECAUSE it is illegal - just like Al Capone profited from bootlegging BECAUSE it was illegal. And if that's the case, certainly we should at least entertain the idea that legalization might help mitigate the problem. Prohibition caused these things, its pretty clear.

Weigh the costs vs the benefits...



I hate to break the news to you big guy, but that is exactly what you have advocated whether you accept it or not. Whether pot should be legal or not is not a dog in this race. The fact remains that it is illegal, criminals are making a profit on a controlled substance and your stance is to change the status of marijuana from illegal to legal in order to remove the profits from these criminals but all you really have achieved is reclassification of the criminals and the elimination of the laws that make them criminals.

How about the government changing the age of consent to 11 years old. We'll eliminate a lot of pedophiles that way and save the reputation of some catholic priests to boot.

AmPat
02-22-2011, 02:25 PM
It aint just the liberals... libertarians generally have this issue right too.
That would be "wrong.":rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-22-2011, 03:02 PM
This is a nice post hijack, from border security to the drug war, but the issue isn't drugs, it's border control. A porous border that allows unrestricted access by hostile elements, whether drug smugglers, human traffickers or terrorists, is not in the interest of the United States.

wilbur
02-22-2011, 03:35 PM
I hate to break the news to you big guy, but that is exactly what you have advocated whether you accept it or not.

Hahaha - um, no.



So you are saying that because some people profit from marijuana being illegal then we should make it legal?

And I most certainly didnt say that, nor do I mean it, because its absolutely stupid. The problem is not the cartel's profit margin per se, its that they use those profits to circumvent our national security, kill people en mass, and to empower themselves to such a degree as to be basically brutal tyrants/dictatorships that enslave and kill.


Whether pot should be legal or not is not a dog in this race.

Uh, its the central question.



The fact remains that it is illegal, criminals are making a profit on a controlled substance and your stance is to change the status of marijuana from illegal to legal in order to remove the profits from these criminals but all you really have achieved is reclassification of the criminals and the elimination of the laws that make the criminals.


Legalizing pot does change a crime into a non-crime. Duh. But so what? You're acting like that proves something.

The important question, as I note above, is whether it should be a crime or not. If it should be a crime, then turning it into a non-crime is bad. If it shouldn't be a crime, then turning it into a non-crime is good. Follow?



How about the government changing the age of consent to 11 years old. We'll eliminate a lot of pedophiles that way and save the reputation of some catholic priests to boot.

Yea, and pedophilia statutory rape necessarily causes harm and necessarily infringes on the rights of another, so it most definitely should remain a crime.

Selling, smoking or buying pot on the other hand... well, like beer or cigarettes or prescription meds - it can be abused or it can be used responsibly to the detriment of no one. In fact, next to beer and tobacco, its a pretty benign substance. So should it be a crime? Don't think so.

Odysseus
02-22-2011, 04:23 PM
Uh, its the central question.

So, if pot were legalized, the cartels would no longer smuggle people into the US? They would no longer work with Islamist terror groups to get them over the border? They wouldn't traffic women for prostitution or men and women to work in the illegal economy here? They'd just pack up and go away and everything on both sides of the border would be peaches and cream? That assumes that Mexico wasn't a lawless hellhole prior to the war on drugs. John Pershing and Pancho Villa might beg to differ.

The fundamental responsibility of any government is to protect the lives and property of its citizens from attack. If drugs were legalized tomorrow, the cartels would have to come up with a new revenue stream, and that stream runs through the US. The issue is, as I have said several times, one of border security, not drug legalization. The cartels work against our most basic interest, the safety of American citizens in their own homes within the borders of their own country.

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 07:13 PM
Hahaha - um, no.



And I most certainly didnt say that, nor do I mean it, because its absolutely stupid. The problem is not the cartel's profit margin per se, its that they use those profits to circumvent our national security, kill people en mass, and to empower themselves to such a degree as to be basically brutal tyrants/dictatorships that enslave and kill.



Uh, its the central question.



Legalizing pot does change a crime into a non-crime. Duh. But so what? You're acting like that proves something.

The important question, as I note above, is whether it should be a crime or not. If it should be a crime, then turning it into a non-crime is bad. If it shouldn't be a crime, then turning it into a non-crime is good. Follow?



Yea, and pedophilia statutory rape necessarily causes harm and necessarily infringes on the rights of another, so it most definitely should remain a crime.

Selling, smoking or buying pot on the other hand... well, like beer or cigarettes or prescription meds - it can be abused or it can be used responsibly to the detriment of no one. In fact, next to beer and tobacco, its a pretty benign substance. So should it be a crime? Don't think so.

You know an awful lot about this for someone who has no interest or desire to use it, It seems odd that you would pick this to campaign for if you have no dog in the fight.

Apache
02-22-2011, 07:25 PM
You know an awful lot about this for someone who has no interest or desire to use it, It seems odd that you would pick this to campaign for if you have no dog in the fight.

Anything that goes against morals, standards or decency, you will find Wilbur there....wasting a lot of words, in defense :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 07:29 PM
Anything that goes against morals, standards or decency, you will find Wilbur there....wasting a lot of words, in defense :rolleyes:

It is odd, who fights for a cause they have no personal interest in?:confused:

wilbur
02-22-2011, 07:47 PM
Anything that goes against morals, standards or decency, you will find Wilbur there....wasting a lot of words, in defense :rolleyes:

blegh... please..

I may sit squarley opposed to your morals on many issues, but my positions come from my sense of morality - not as a celebration or advocacy of the immoral. I'd argue that anyone who suggests pot smoking is innately immoral (and not really a matter of how its used) is operating according to a very silly or very deficient moral code.

You ever drink beer? How bout smoke? What's your "moral" compass tell you about those things?

wilbur
02-22-2011, 07:48 PM
It is odd, who fights for a cause they have no personal interest in?:confused:

Do you smoke tobacco? Would you support other's right to smoke tobacco even if you didnt partake yourself?

wilbur
02-22-2011, 07:51 PM
So, if pot were legalized, the cartels would no longer smuggle people into the US?

I wasnt really discussing that point in particular in my back and forth with FBI Guy.... But at the beginning of the thread I said this:



Its naive to think the cartels will just vanish with legalization... but unless we completely fubar drug reform, there's no way it can't affect them. They have to spend money to fund their little armies and high tech smuggling operations.... those are some big expenses that legal businesses do not have.

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 07:51 PM
blegh... please..

I may sit squarley opposed to your morals on many issues, but I'd argue that anyone who suggests pot smoking is innately immoral (and not really a matter of how its used) is operating according to a very silly or very deficient moral code.

You ever drink beer? How bout smoke? What's your "moral" compass tell you about those things?

Don't smoke , Don't drink and I don't argue for the support of any of it, why would I?

wilbur
02-22-2011, 07:55 PM
Don't smoke , Don't drink and I don't argue for the support of any of it, why would I?

Gee, I dunno.... last time we tried to outlaw alcohol we experienced some pretty bad consequences - whether one imbibed or not- don't you think?

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 08:02 PM
Gee, I dunno.... last time we tried to outlaw alcohol we experienced some pretty bad consequences - whether one imbibed or not- don't you think?

Do you drink?

PoliCon
02-22-2011, 08:05 PM
Do you drink?

You have to ask? :rolleyes:

wilbur
02-22-2011, 08:21 PM
Do you drink?

Yep!

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 08:37 PM
Yep!

To the point of catching a buzz?

wilbur
02-22-2011, 09:23 PM
To the point of catching a buzz?

Yep!

Rockntractor
02-22-2011, 09:38 PM
Yep!

You have to admit, a left wing liberal that drinks to catch a buzz normally would be a user of weed, as much time as you spend advocating for it.

Personally, I believe you, I just think it's strange.

wilbur
02-22-2011, 11:19 PM
You have to admit, a left wing liberal that drinks to catch a buzz normally would be a user of weed

no...... not really

Odysseus
02-23-2011, 10:08 AM
I wasnt really discussing that point in particular in my back and forth with FBI Guy.... But at the beginning of the thread I said this:



Its naive to think the cartels will just vanish with legalization... but unless we completely fubar drug reform, there's no way it can't affect them. They have to spend money to fund their little armies and high tech smuggling operations.... those are some big expenses that legal businesses do not have.


And what do you think that their response will be?

Here's the problem. We declared a war on drugs, but we've treated it the way we treat domestic law enforcement. If drugs and drug cartels are a national security issue (and they are), then we need to throw out the legal niceties and wage war. Armed foreign nationals crossing the US border aren't criminals, they are invaders, and those that survive the initial encounters with US military forces can be repatriated at the end of hostilities. If the government of Mexico cannot control them on their side of the border, then we need to stage joint operations with the Mexican Army, in Mexican territory, to break the cartels. Treat Juarez like Fallujah, not Tuscon.

Wei Wu Wei
02-23-2011, 12:54 PM
Don't smoke , Don't drink and I don't argue for the support of any of it, why would I?

to support the freedom of people to make the same choice you make, if they so choose to.

I don't own a gun, I have no desire to own a gun, but I support the 2nd amendment


I support gay rights even though I'm not gay.


the same applies with speech too, you know, may not agree with what you have to say but so on and so forth?

Wei Wu Wei
02-23-2011, 12:56 PM
making a stupid law for stupid reasons that results in $10 billion each year going to Mexican cartels, and high costs for prosecuting minor drug offenders.

it's just plain stupid.

i don't smoke marijuana either, but i do know that it is relativbely harmless compared to alchohol or tobacco. the absurdity of our drug policy is staring us all in the face.

Wei Wu Wei
02-23-2011, 12:58 PM
Of all of the conservative positions (and I know conservatives have different opinions on this issue), marijuana laws are one thing I do not get. most conservatives know damn well that it's a relatively benign drug, and they claim to hate Big Government, overreaching laws, prohibitions on personal choices, and bloated beaurocracies, but that's all you get from marijuana prohibition.

what is the conservative argument for continuing a war on marijuana when it's both failing and not necessary (not to mention ridiculously expensive and funds our enemies)?

AmPat
02-23-2011, 01:37 PM
Of all of the conservative positions (and I know conservatives have different opinions on this issue), marijuana laws are one thing I do not get. most conservatives know damn well that it's a relatively benign drug, and they claim to hate Big Government, overreaching laws, prohibitions on personal choices, and bloated beaurocracies, but that's all you get from marijuana prohibition.

what is the conservative argument for continuing a war on marijuana when it's both failing and not necessary (not to mention ridiculously expensive and funds our enemies)?

There are already too many idiots out there sans pharmacueticals. We don't need to legalize another mood ameliorating drug out there making even more stupid people doing stuupider things.:cool:

Rockntractor
02-23-2011, 01:48 PM
to support the freedom of people to make the same choice you make, if they so choose to.

I don't own a gun, I have no desire to own a gun, but I support the 2nd amendment


I support gay rights even though I'm not gay.


the same applies with speech too, you know, may not agree with what you have to say but so on and so forth?

I have never seen you take the time to repeatedly argue for gun rights in a debate here like Wilbur does for drug legalization. Normally if you have no vested interest in something you don't go out of your way to argue it.
I also think marijuana should be legalized, I have no strong feelings for it or against it. I let my opinion be known a while back but I have no drum to beat and don't waste time debating it. I don't think the world would be better or worse with it legalized.
As for you and gay rights, I wouldn't sleep on my stomach with you in the room.

Odysseus
02-23-2011, 01:53 PM
to support the freedom of people to make the same choice you make, if they so choose to.
Unless they want to create and own property. Then you want to nationalize their assets and impoverish them.

what is the conservative argument for continuing a war on marijuana when it's both failing and not necessary (not to mention ridiculously expensive and funds our enemies)?

Well, for one thing, it annoys you.

Rockntractor
02-23-2011, 01:57 PM
Well, for one thing, it annoys you.

The best arguement I've seen yet!:cool:

wilbur
02-23-2011, 02:09 PM
And what do you think that their response will be?

Here's the problem. We declared a war on drugs, but we've treated it the way we treat domestic law enforcement. If drugs and drug cartels are a national security issue (and they are), then we need to throw out the legal niceties and wage war. Armed foreign nationals crossing the US border aren't criminals, they are invaders, and those that survive the initial encounters with US military forces can be repatriated at the end of hostilities. If the government of Mexico cannot control them on their side of the border, then we need to stage joint operations with the Mexican Army, in Mexican territory, to break the cartels. Treat Juarez like Fallujah, not Tuscon.

Don't really have a problem with any of that.

AmPat
02-23-2011, 02:14 PM
[QUOTE=Wei Wu Wei;378869]I support gay rights even though I'm not gay.What is the difference between "gay" rights and Constitutional rights? I wasn't aware that gays had special rights not afforded to or applied to all Americans.:rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-23-2011, 02:55 PM
Don't really have a problem with any of that.
Then I must review my post and determine where I was wrong.

[QUOTE]What is the difference between "gay" rights and Constitutional rights? I wasn't aware that gays had special rights not afforded to or applied to all Americans.:rolleyes:

Some Americans are more equal than others.