Fast and Furious: The Plot Thickens

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

I personally do not want to give the states the option.

Then you don't agree with Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by WTF

Let them regulate the way they do booze. But no state should be in your bedroom or your living room. Just like the Federal Government shouldn't.

That's a given. But then don't you turn to LE to examine your car or to come into your living room and bedroom when you find they've been burglarized to support some user's habit?

Originally Posted by WTF

A: I would, at the federal level. I don’t have control over the states. And that’s why the Constitution’s there

Eventually, states with the least restrictive laws will end up with the majority of the casualties of drug use.

[i'va biggen]

[quote=I B Hankering;1925669]The absurdity of your willful ignorance borders on profane. “Fast and Furious” was conceived and executed on Holder/Obama’s watch, and still you blame Bush.[/quote

sit back and drink your cool aid with cute old fart

[CuteOldGuy]

LOL! Wow! You are really under that Obama spell, aren't you?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The absurdity of your willful ignorance borders on profane. “Fast and Furious” was conceived and executed on Holder/Obama’s watch, and still you blame Bush.

It was a pitiful attempt to get laws changed....

[CuteOldGuy]

So as long as Obama maintains the same high standards that were set by the Bush administration, we should not complain about how he is handling his job. Is that correct?

If Bush started a stupid, dangerous policy, then it is ok for Obama to continue it? As long as any blame can be placed on Bush, Obama can do anything he wants with impunity?

Ok, just so we're clear.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Then you don't agree with Ron Paul?
.

There is nobody I agree with 100% of the time. Those are what we call sheep or Fox News viewers! LOL I am sorry I did not make it clear just what me and Ron agree and disagree on. I believe in personl choice and personal responsibility.
It is not to hard to extrapolate that out into my belief system.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That's a given. But then don't you turn to LE to examine your car or to come into your living room and bedroom when you find they've been burglarized to support some user's habit?

.

Are you trying to say that if we were to legalize drugs....then there would be more crime?

If so, how about we outlaw beer sale.

That is an absurd argument.

What I wish we would do as a nation is take on more personal reasonability. That means not depending on LE to protect you from every threat.

That is a typical scare tactic from both the left and right when they want to take away some personal freedom.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Eventually, states with the least restrictive laws will end up with the majority of the casualties of drug use.

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Do you want the states to determine just what is and isn't good for you?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Ok, just so we're clear.

No, we are not clear at all.

It was stupid for Bush and it is stupid for Obama.

Though I doubt if either had the details of either operation.

From wdhat I have read, the Bush operation was run much tighter and controlled.

But even that was not my orginial point you dumb SOB. My point was the war on drugs is the rreal problem. These people running these opersations are just pawns.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So as long as Obama maintains the same high standards that were set by the Bush administration, we should not complain about how he is handling his job. Is that correct?

No, that is not correct. You should complain. But like I said, if you are getting butt fuc'd and all I hear you complain about is that the butt fuc'er is kissing you, then I assume you do not mind the butt fuc'n.

Who cares if they were tag teaming you. God Damn, it is the War on drugs(butt fuc'n) that is the main problem not the kissing of your purty lil lips (Fast and furious)

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If Bush started a stupid, dangerous policy, then it is ok for Obama to continue it? As long as any blame can be placed on Bush, Obama can do anything he wants with impunity?

.

No...this war on drugs is stupid, just as Obama's continuation of this war in Afghanistan is.

Do you have trouble following simple logic?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by ekim008

sit back and drink your cool aid with cute old fart

Dude, you've sucked the Kool-aid bowl dry, and you're apparently recycling.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Do you have any evidence to back that up? Do you want the states to determine just what is and isn't good for you?

Unfortunately, yes. Massive U.S. interdiction in Colombia brought about the demise of the Colombia's Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s, which destroyed their stranglehold on narco-trafficking and allowed the Mexican cartels to arise and take their place. The crime center moved north.

Originally Posted by WTF

There is nobody I agree with 100% of the time. Those are what we call sheep or Fox News viewers! LOL I am sorry I did not make it clear just what me and Ron agree and disagree on. I believe in personl choice and personal responsibility.
It is not to hard to extrapolate that out into my belief system. . . .
That is a typical scare tactic from both the left and right when they want to take away some personal freedom.

It's not a scare tactic, it's a reality. Many users do turn to crime to support their habit. Innocent bystanders are unnecessarily killed in drug related crimes because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I’ll concede too many Americans are predisposed to surrender themselves to a drug habit based as it is, upon a human craving no laws can eradicate, but I’ll never excuse the drug abusers weakness (alcohol etc.,) and the misery abusers visit on others. Legalizing drugs in no way mitigates the negative impact of recreational drug use on society.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Unfortunately, yes. Massive U.S. interdiction in Colombia brought about the demise of the Colombia's Cali and Medellín cartels in the 1990s, which destroyed their stranglehold on narco-trafficking and allowed the Mexican cartels to arise and take their place. The crime center moved north.

That does not back up your contention. But the main question is , "Do you want a granny state?" A state telling you what is and isn't good for you? You have not read the Columbian model...they made paece with their exporters. All we have done in this country is spent billions playing wacjk a mole!


http://www.csdp.org/news/news/colombia.htm

18 Percent Increase Over Past 5 Years in Andean Coca Production, $4 Billion Wasted

The United States has poured billions of dollars over the last 20 years into South America towards cocaine eradication, all while Bolivia has seen a significant rise in cocaine production. In South America, coca is viewed as a central crop to many farming families survival. According to The Washington Post September 3, 2008 article,("Despite U.S. Aid, Coca Cultivation on Rise in Andes") "Across the Andean region, the size of the coca crop has increased 18 percent in the past five years, a period during which the United States has spent $4 billion on anti-drug programs. With farmers turning to pesticides and modern irrigation to improve crop yields, the amount of cocaine produced in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia -- source countries for nearly all of the global supply -- hovers at 1,100 tons a year, according to a recent U.N. report."
The article states, "Here in the lush Yungas region of western Bolivia, farmers are allowed by law to plant a total of nearly 30,000 acres of coca--leaf that is then sold in the domestic market for tea or to be chewed to ward off hunger. But production here far exceeds that threshold, and much of the surplus feeds a cocaine trade thriving in part on the new regional demand of a rising Latin American middle class. The Andean cocaine supply now exceeds the amount produced in the 1990s, when U.S. policymakers pushed anti-drug aid to the region to counter powerful Colombian cartels. In 1993, when a U.S.-supported police unit shot dead the drug lord Pablo Escobar in his home town of Medellin, the Andes produced 200 fewer tons of cocaine than it did last year."
The article adds, "So far this decade, the United States has invested nearly $8 billion in the drug war, funding manual eradication efforts in Bolivia and neighboring Peru and an aerial herbicide-spraying program in Colombia that has covered more than 2.5 million acres since 2000. In Colombia, where the United States has spent the most, coca cultivation rose 27 percent from 2006 to 2007, to about 245,000 acres. That accounts for more than 50 percent of all coca production in the region. Coca plantings in Bolivia and Peru also increased by about 5 percent each. Taken together, the United Nations reported a 16 percent increase in Andean coca production in 2007."

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's not a scare tactic, it's a reality. Many users do turn to crime to support their habit. Innocent bystanders are unnecessarily killed in drug related crimes because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Are alcoholics breaking into your house for booze? They are drug related crimes because they are illegal. Make them legal, the price goes down, the bad guys pay taxes and have no reason to fight against law enforcement. You will never bend the demand curve to zero. My God more people are killed in car wrecks each year. You do not see me wanting to outlaw cars! Your whole line of reasoning is fuc'd. Outlaw breathing and you will have a shit pile more of outlaws. That is my point, stupid laws.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I’ll concede too many Americans are predisposed to surrender themselves to a drug habit based as it is, upon a human craving no laws can eradicate, but I’ll never excuse the drug abusers weakness (alcohol etc.,) and the misery abusers visit on others. Legalizing drugs in no way mitigates the negative impact of recreational drug use on society.

You have fought and lost the war for the last forty years.

Do like they do with alcohol. Legalize it and deal with it in a rational way.

You sound like some pansy liberal trying to change people's personal habits with laws.

My God , outlaw idleness why you are at it.

These laws are just another form of government control.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

That does not back up your contention. But the main question is , "Do you want a granny state?" A state telling you what is and isn't good for you? You have not read the Columbian model...they made paece with their exporters. All we have done in this country is spent billions playing wacjk a mole!

You asked for an example, you got it - you can call it "wacjk [sic] the mole", but the cartels did find an easier state to exist in.

Originally Posted by WTF

You have fought and lost the war for the last forty years.

Do like they do with alcohol. Legalize it and deal with it in a rational way.

You sound like some pansy liberal trying to change people's personal habits with laws.

These laws are just another form of government control.

FYI, the "war" has been going on for over one hundred years. I agree, you cannot legislate morality.

Originally Posted by WTF

My God , outlaw idleness why you are at it.

Then who'd be left to bicker on a SHMB?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You asked for an example, you got it - you can call it "wacjk [sic] the mole", but the cartels did find an easier state to exist in.



.

Mexico sounds like it is much harder to exist in than Columbia! It was the other way around in the ninties!

Have you read the book ''Killing Pablo''? Great book, and a great conclusion on the effects of the war on drugs.

I basically have faith that the world would not crumble by legalization. Who knows.

I think that the illegality of the drug is the problem. You do not see turf wars in beer sales! Just funny , sexy commercials!

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

FYI, the "war" has been going on for over one hundred years. I agree, you cannot legislate morality.

That it what we are trying to do by telling people they can not consume something. I wish the government would start making some money off this commerce instead of this steady outflow of funds...

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Have you read the book ''Killing Pablo''?

It's been on my list for a while now. Bought it two weeks ago (I like how Bowden writes), but I have four other books in front of it at present.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Perhaps you would prefer to adopt the Draconian measures employed by Chairman Mao in China. His solution was to execute all of the dealers and rehabilitate users – once. Those who relapsed were then also executed. Mao ended China’s centuries old drug problem in one generation.

FYI, the drug problem was created by the late British Empire.

[WTF]

Personally, I think the drug problem is just human nature.