mexico as a failed state
- Thread starter ernesto
- Start date
I think that's the 1st article I've read that does such a good job of summing up the whole situation with no political leanings whatsoever. Talk is cheap, but Mexico isn't about to cut the head off the goose that laid the golden egg. What makes it even more laughable is the double-dipping taking place, i.e., they take our money to help fight drugs and at the same time they are taking our money that's used to buy drugs. It's win-win for them no matter what until the USA wakes the hell up, ends the war on drugs, and legalizes to kill off the obscene profit margins. Until then...
Viva Mexico!:mexico:
Say amigo, can you spare a poor gringo a few pesos for some comida?
Viva Mexico!:mexico:
Say amigo, can you spare a poor gringo a few pesos for some comida?
The legalization question keeps coming up. I'm trying to keep an open mind in the face of some compelling arguments, but I'm still having trouble with it.
First, marijuana is only one of the illegal drugs coming from Mexico. While marijuana is said to be the cartels' biggest moneymaker by far, there is also heroin, cocaine and methamphemines (now that US pharmacies carefully control meth ingredients, or so I'm told.) Would we need to legalize heroin and cocaine too? If marijuana were taken out of the equation, how much smuggling would continue for other drugs and for people, and how much income would it provide smugglers? Still enough for cartels to maintain their own armies and control parts of northern Mexico?
If marijuana suddenly became cheap as a result of legalization, would there be increased demand for the other illegal substances still coming from Mexico? I'm tryin to think like an economist and imagine what would happen if drug-seekers suddenly found more disposable income in their household budgets as a result of cheaper pot. Would they be more likely to spend their windfall on (a)health insurance, (b)home improvements, (c) larger 401K contributions, (d)charitable donations, or (e) more frequent purchases of cocaine, which may have previously been an unaffordable luxury? Remember, these are people who like to get high. I'm thinking other drugs might see at least a little bump in demand.
And how do you tell Americans they may consume one mind-altering recreational drug but not others, the difference being based on the calculated impacts to border security and Mexico's internal affairs?
Who is smoking all this dope, and where do they work? Nowadays most employers require drug testing for new hires. I have to assume that once it becomes legal and users are more visible, pot will become more acceptable and then more widespread. We'll want to manage its use, and that could prove almost as expensive as trying to suppress it. Since marijuana use is much harder to detect than alcohol, we'll need to choose between expensive on-going drug testing for employees or accepting that a lot of people are working stoned at hospitals, in factories and even while piloting passenger planes.
If we legalize it only to find that solution bites us in other ways and wasn't worth it, how do you get the genie back in the bottle?
We're losing this war because we aren't willing to do what it takes to suppress US pot use to acceptable levels. My generation - the baby boomers - finds marijuana at least marginally acceptable, even though we may no longer use it ourselves and don't want our children using it. We don't associate marijuana with support of a system for murder, torture and corruption in Mexico and hypocrisy in the US. We incorrectly regard it as a personal choice that is more or less without any consequences to other individuals and society in general.
High levels of marijuana use in the US continue with the tacit approval of US society. Contrary to what many believe, people do not get jail sentences merely for possession of small amounts. Adult diversion, probation, counseling, etc., but not for simple possession unless they were committing another crime when found in possession and agreed to plea to the possession charge in exchange for dropping other possible charges.
One thing the US and Mexico have in common: both say they're committed to stamping out drugs, but neither really means it.
First, marijuana is only one of the illegal drugs coming from Mexico. While marijuana is said to be the cartels' biggest moneymaker by far, there is also heroin, cocaine and methamphemines (now that US pharmacies carefully control meth ingredients, or so I'm told.) Would we need to legalize heroin and cocaine too? If marijuana were taken out of the equation, how much smuggling would continue for other drugs and for people, and how much income would it provide smugglers? Still enough for cartels to maintain their own armies and control parts of northern Mexico?
If marijuana suddenly became cheap as a result of legalization, would there be increased demand for the other illegal substances still coming from Mexico? I'm tryin to think like an economist and imagine what would happen if drug-seekers suddenly found more disposable income in their household budgets as a result of cheaper pot. Would they be more likely to spend their windfall on (a)health insurance, (b)home improvements, (c) larger 401K contributions, (d)charitable donations, or (e) more frequent purchases of cocaine, which may have previously been an unaffordable luxury? Remember, these are people who like to get high. I'm thinking other drugs might see at least a little bump in demand.
And how do you tell Americans they may consume one mind-altering recreational drug but not others, the difference being based on the calculated impacts to border security and Mexico's internal affairs?
Who is smoking all this dope, and where do they work? Nowadays most employers require drug testing for new hires. I have to assume that once it becomes legal and users are more visible, pot will become more acceptable and then more widespread. We'll want to manage its use, and that could prove almost as expensive as trying to suppress it. Since marijuana use is much harder to detect than alcohol, we'll need to choose between expensive on-going drug testing for employees or accepting that a lot of people are working stoned at hospitals, in factories and even while piloting passenger planes.
If we legalize it only to find that solution bites us in other ways and wasn't worth it, how do you get the genie back in the bottle?
We're losing this war because we aren't willing to do what it takes to suppress US pot use to acceptable levels. My generation - the baby boomers - finds marijuana at least marginally acceptable, even though we may no longer use it ourselves and don't want our children using it. We don't associate marijuana with support of a system for murder, torture and corruption in Mexico and hypocrisy in the US. We incorrectly regard it as a personal choice that is more or less without any consequences to other individuals and society in general.
High levels of marijuana use in the US continue with the tacit approval of US society. Contrary to what many believe, people do not get jail sentences merely for possession of small amounts. Adult diversion, probation, counseling, etc., but not for simple possession unless they were committing another crime when found in possession and agreed to plea to the possession charge in exchange for dropping other possible charges.
One thing the US and Mexico have in common: both say they're committed to stamping out drugs, but neither really means it.
Last edited:
mexicoruss
Lovin it in RP!
Interesting article
Some good points, Audsley. I'm a Boomer, too, and yes, far from being the "Refer Madness" depicted years ago, most of us Boomers know that an occasional puff of weed is really no worse for you than knocking back a couple of stiff shots of liquor. I was a child of the late 60's and 70's - the "Peace, Love, and Pot" Generation, if you will. Smoking weed was as much a sign of rebellion against the establishment as it was about getting high. Life goes on, I grew up and realized that I could make something of my life or just sit around being a dirty Hippie with a menial job and stay stoned all the time. Some people make that transition, some never do.
Nobody is addicted to marijuana. Socially and behaviorally maybe, but not physically. It's easy to throw away the bong and rolling papers and say "I'm done with this crap" and that's the end of it. It's a hell of a lot harder to quit cigarettes or give up drinking than to stop smoking pot. The reason we don't want our kids doing it is because so many of us Boomers went down that path and know that it's a dead end -- it just makes you stupid, unmotivated, and in the long run, is a fantastic waste of time and money.
About marijuana being a gateway drug - that's been claimed for years and there was a lot of truth to it, but not so much anymore. Back in the day, if pot was good, then acid and peyote were better because being high was about expanding your conciousness, being at one with the universe, cosmic understanding, seeing rainbows, unicorns and other such crap. Heroin was about needles, junkies, puking your guts out, and overdoses. I grew up in a town that was flooded with drugs. I saw several friends die from heroin. As Neil Young said, "I've seen the needle and the damage done... every junkie's like a setting sun."
Today, meth is the plague, much more so than heroin, even though there's been an uptick once again in heroin use. Meth makes you feel like superman for days at a time, until you crash. It also completely rewires your neural network for one thing - more meth, at any cost. Cocaine? Not as bad as meth, but also responsible for rewiring you to want another line and more of a "sport" drug, if you can afford it. It's hard to be addicted to anything if you can't afford it.
If you've got an addictive personality, it's easy to become addicted to any drug. Nicotine, alcohol, heroin, caffeine, pot, meth, whatever. Smoking one joint does not mean you'll be sticking a needle in your arm next week. However, smoking that first joint does erase the dark, illegal stigma associated with drugs. You smoke those first few joints with some friends, get stoned, and then look back thinking "Hey, that wasn't so bad. I didn't die or turn into a raving lunatic and it actually felt pretty good." Then you wonder what else they lied to you about and try other drugs. In the regard I just described, marijuana is indeed a gateway drug. It often does open the door to trying other things. How much of that stigma would be erased by legalization? Realistically, alcohol is readily available to everyone of age, but do all of us grow up to be alcoholics? No, we don't. Legalizing marijuana won't turn us all into stoners.
I give kids today a lot more credit than when I was growing up. They've been bombarded since birth with anti-drug propoganda. Drugs are just not as "cool" today as they were in my generation and that's a good thing. Tweakers (meth users) are outright despised by their peer group - they lie, cheat and steal and nobody wants to be around them. Stoners (pot smokers) are looked on with similar disregard, but without the outright despise held toward tweakers. The peer group overall views stoners as stupid, not disgusting. I know this because I've raised 4 kids with the youngest graduating high school next month and heading to ASU in the fall. I've talked with them and their friends about drugs and their attitudes about it. Amazingly, I'm surprised at how focused most of them are. Focused on achievement, not partying or getting high. They want the latest cell phones, video games, a car, scholarships, a college education and a good job. Then again, I never recall anyone of my friends saying "I want to be a heroin addict when I grow up," yet some of them did become just that. One of my four kids did head down the wrong path for awhile, but it was her defiant personality that took her there, despite all our attempts at intervention. She has since recovered and leads a clean and sober life, recently got married, has a job and a child. She finally saw the light and that's a good thing.
So, do I think legalization will turn us into a nation of addicts? Nope, not at all. Oh, I'm sure there will be initial euphoria and celebration of it actually being legal. As soon as the hype dies down, life will pretty much return to what it is right now - those that choose to smoke pot will still do it and those that don't won't bother. Drug testing will still and should be a reality. Personally, because of doing contract work for different companies last year, I was drug tested three times. Doesn't bother me a bit, I know I'm clean. If you want a decent job and a paycheck, you accept that. If you want to live on welfare and be a drug addict, that's your choice, too. Just don't expect me to pay for your drug habit. I firmly believe that anybody getting government assistance to live (welfare) should have to take a drug test on a regular basis. Fail once and you lose all benefits until you test clean at least three times.
As far as putting the genie back in the bottle? I see no problem with that. I grew up in Pennsylvania. The drinking age was 21. Always was, always will be. In the 70's, partly as a result of the Vietnam War, every state around Pennsylvania lowered the drinking age to 18 (old enough to vote, old enough to be drafted and fight the war, but not old enough to buy a beer??). I could drive over to Jersey and legally get drunk as a skunk. Or Maryland. Or Ohio. Or New York. And then of course, drive home drunk. But, I couldn't legally walk into a bar in my hometown and buy a beer. Flash forward to today, what's the drinking age? 21 everywhere in the US of A. Why? Because the Federal government witheld funds from any state that refused to raise the drinking age to 21. Our government legislates morality all the freakin' time from raising cigarette taxes to try and make people stop smoking to criminalizing not picking up your dog's poop from the street corner. Nothing stops them from doing the same thing with marijuana.
Anyway, there is so much to this debate. None of us know exactly what will happen. The one thing we can probably all agree on is this - what we've been doing (the war on drugs) for the past 40 years hasn't worked. It's definitely time to try something else! The situation with the cartels in Mexico is only getting worse. That violence will spill over the border; it's already started to do just that. I doubt we are "unleashing the genie from the bottle." More so as a nation, I think we're being realistic and admitting responsibility for our actions, that X% of our population does and will continue to smoke marijuana regardless of drug testing or any laws against it, and that all the money now funneled into blackmarket cartel pockets will become a legal source of revenue.
Nobody is addicted to marijuana. Socially and behaviorally maybe, but not physically. It's easy to throw away the bong and rolling papers and say "I'm done with this crap" and that's the end of it. It's a hell of a lot harder to quit cigarettes or give up drinking than to stop smoking pot. The reason we don't want our kids doing it is because so many of us Boomers went down that path and know that it's a dead end -- it just makes you stupid, unmotivated, and in the long run, is a fantastic waste of time and money.
About marijuana being a gateway drug - that's been claimed for years and there was a lot of truth to it, but not so much anymore. Back in the day, if pot was good, then acid and peyote were better because being high was about expanding your conciousness, being at one with the universe, cosmic understanding, seeing rainbows, unicorns and other such crap. Heroin was about needles, junkies, puking your guts out, and overdoses. I grew up in a town that was flooded with drugs. I saw several friends die from heroin. As Neil Young said, "I've seen the needle and the damage done... every junkie's like a setting sun."
Today, meth is the plague, much more so than heroin, even though there's been an uptick once again in heroin use. Meth makes you feel like superman for days at a time, until you crash. It also completely rewires your neural network for one thing - more meth, at any cost. Cocaine? Not as bad as meth, but also responsible for rewiring you to want another line and more of a "sport" drug, if you can afford it. It's hard to be addicted to anything if you can't afford it.
If you've got an addictive personality, it's easy to become addicted to any drug. Nicotine, alcohol, heroin, caffeine, pot, meth, whatever. Smoking one joint does not mean you'll be sticking a needle in your arm next week. However, smoking that first joint does erase the dark, illegal stigma associated with drugs. You smoke those first few joints with some friends, get stoned, and then look back thinking "Hey, that wasn't so bad. I didn't die or turn into a raving lunatic and it actually felt pretty good." Then you wonder what else they lied to you about and try other drugs. In the regard I just described, marijuana is indeed a gateway drug. It often does open the door to trying other things. How much of that stigma would be erased by legalization? Realistically, alcohol is readily available to everyone of age, but do all of us grow up to be alcoholics? No, we don't. Legalizing marijuana won't turn us all into stoners.
I give kids today a lot more credit than when I was growing up. They've been bombarded since birth with anti-drug propoganda. Drugs are just not as "cool" today as they were in my generation and that's a good thing. Tweakers (meth users) are outright despised by their peer group - they lie, cheat and steal and nobody wants to be around them. Stoners (pot smokers) are looked on with similar disregard, but without the outright despise held toward tweakers. The peer group overall views stoners as stupid, not disgusting. I know this because I've raised 4 kids with the youngest graduating high school next month and heading to ASU in the fall. I've talked with them and their friends about drugs and their attitudes about it. Amazingly, I'm surprised at how focused most of them are. Focused on achievement, not partying or getting high. They want the latest cell phones, video games, a car, scholarships, a college education and a good job. Then again, I never recall anyone of my friends saying "I want to be a heroin addict when I grow up," yet some of them did become just that. One of my four kids did head down the wrong path for awhile, but it was her defiant personality that took her there, despite all our attempts at intervention. She has since recovered and leads a clean and sober life, recently got married, has a job and a child. She finally saw the light and that's a good thing.
So, do I think legalization will turn us into a nation of addicts? Nope, not at all. Oh, I'm sure there will be initial euphoria and celebration of it actually being legal. As soon as the hype dies down, life will pretty much return to what it is right now - those that choose to smoke pot will still do it and those that don't won't bother. Drug testing will still and should be a reality. Personally, because of doing contract work for different companies last year, I was drug tested three times. Doesn't bother me a bit, I know I'm clean. If you want a decent job and a paycheck, you accept that. If you want to live on welfare and be a drug addict, that's your choice, too. Just don't expect me to pay for your drug habit. I firmly believe that anybody getting government assistance to live (welfare) should have to take a drug test on a regular basis. Fail once and you lose all benefits until you test clean at least three times.
As far as putting the genie back in the bottle? I see no problem with that. I grew up in Pennsylvania. The drinking age was 21. Always was, always will be. In the 70's, partly as a result of the Vietnam War, every state around Pennsylvania lowered the drinking age to 18 (old enough to vote, old enough to be drafted and fight the war, but not old enough to buy a beer??). I could drive over to Jersey and legally get drunk as a skunk. Or Maryland. Or Ohio. Or New York. And then of course, drive home drunk. But, I couldn't legally walk into a bar in my hometown and buy a beer. Flash forward to today, what's the drinking age? 21 everywhere in the US of A. Why? Because the Federal government witheld funds from any state that refused to raise the drinking age to 21. Our government legislates morality all the freakin' time from raising cigarette taxes to try and make people stop smoking to criminalizing not picking up your dog's poop from the street corner. Nothing stops them from doing the same thing with marijuana.
Anyway, there is so much to this debate. None of us know exactly what will happen. The one thing we can probably all agree on is this - what we've been doing (the war on drugs) for the past 40 years hasn't worked. It's definitely time to try something else! The situation with the cartels in Mexico is only getting worse. That violence will spill over the border; it's already started to do just that. I doubt we are "unleashing the genie from the bottle." More so as a nation, I think we're being realistic and admitting responsibility for our actions, that X% of our population does and will continue to smoke marijuana regardless of drug testing or any laws against it, and that all the money now funneled into blackmarket cartel pockets will become a legal source of revenue.
I am a retired parole supervisor of 23 years. I have worked with literally tens of thousands of people that have been in prison from criminal trespassing to first degree murder. I have never seen a person go to prison for crimes that involved marijuana other than being in position of marijuana (which includes the sales of). The gateway tag is just that. I know this; it is huge money for government agencies to keep it a crime.
Absolutely correct. From law enforcement, to lawyers, to courtrooms, to prisons, to rehabilitation, there is a stack of money taller than the Empire State building that keeps those wheels turning as part of the war on drugs. The government is not going to let go of those dollars for one second, although they could be well-spent in so many other ways. How about legalizing and putting those said prosecution dollars into health care, instead of stealing it from Medicare and other existing programs? Just a thought. Geez, I'm so radical in my thinking!
I give Mexico huge props for the recent decriminalization of possession of small amounts of most drugs. A very bold step and from what I've read so far, it hasn't had the catastrophic consequences predicted by the US media. Probably never will.
S
Submarine
Guest
Well here's one for ya, guess you missed it? He's the reason I didn't go to ASU Law school.
I don't support legalization in any way shape or form. The lead story the other day was that dump truck driver who mowed down 6 motorcyclists killing 4 because he had meth in his system. I'm sure he never touched pot either. I have friends who are addicted to pot- they have to have it every single day and more when they party. They have their smoking paraphernelia buried out in the Mexican desert so they stop on the way down to find it via GPS so they don't get busted at the border. They could do so much more with their lives but would rather do pot.
I think the typical deflection argument about alcohol is complete bull****. I would be in favor of complete prohibition even though I like to partake socially. But we tried it and it was repealed. I don't think this country is necessarily better off.
I think it's disingenious to say the Government isn't really committed to the drug war. If the Govt was just interested in revenue, they would legalize it and tax the **** out of it like they do alcohol and tobacco.
The guy that mowed down the bikers was on meth, but it could have been heroin, legally prescribed pills, crack or booze. No deflection there, DUI is DUI regardless of the substance involved. If it was booze, they wouldn't have been waiting for the toxicology results to arrest him yesterday; they would have DUI'd him on the spot. What I'm getting at is that people make choices in life and they aren't always good choices. Mr. Dumptruck Driver chose to do meth and drive. Unfortunately, it caused 4 innocent people to die and 6 to be seriously injured, probably for life. Given the amplified public awareness campaigns and increased enforcement of DUI offenses over the past several years, have any of those numbers gone down? Not really. Every holiday you can read the numbers of those arrested or hear it on the news. The number they catch that are extreme DUI has increased, not slowed down.
Your friends choose to be potheads. It's a choice, not an addiction. Ain't like being gay, nobody is "born" a pothead. Party on Wayne, party on Garth! Do I personally care if they (or anyone else for that matter) chooses to smoke pot? As long they aren't driving or in some way endangering others, I couldn't give a damn. Given the length of my daily commute these days, I'm more afraid of idiot drivers on their cell phones than I am of someone who smokes pot. Like you said - they could do so much more with their lives, but choose not to. Kinda describes every pothead I've ever known.
James Hamm. He made a choice. A choice for the easy money by ripping somebody off and then killing them. Did drugs affect the choice he made? Obviously. If pot were legal, the incident you quoted would probably never have happened and none of us would even know who James Hamm is.
So, Mr. Annoyingly Annoying - what would you do to solve the current problem with drugs and the Mexican cartels? Send in more troops? Nuke 'em til they glow? Over the past week, the cartels have started attacking Mexican military outposts. Serious attacks with grenades and machine guns, some pretty heavy firepower. Fortunately, the cartels ain't Jack Bauer. Most of the attackers have been killed.
Your friends choose to be potheads. It's a choice, not an addiction. Ain't like being gay, nobody is "born" a pothead. Party on Wayne, party on Garth! Do I personally care if they (or anyone else for that matter) chooses to smoke pot? As long they aren't driving or in some way endangering others, I couldn't give a damn. Given the length of my daily commute these days, I'm more afraid of idiot drivers on their cell phones than I am of someone who smokes pot. Like you said - they could do so much more with their lives, but choose not to. Kinda describes every pothead I've ever known.
James Hamm. He made a choice. A choice for the easy money by ripping somebody off and then killing them. Did drugs affect the choice he made? Obviously. If pot were legal, the incident you quoted would probably never have happened and none of us would even know who James Hamm is.
So, Mr. Annoyingly Annoying - what would you do to solve the current problem with drugs and the Mexican cartels? Send in more troops? Nuke 'em til they glow? Over the past week, the cartels have started attacking Mexican military outposts. Serious attacks with grenades and machine guns, some pretty heavy firepower. Fortunately, the cartels ain't Jack Bauer. Most of the attackers have been killed.
THAT made me laugh!!
Man, like I'm so toasted... I better log where the I put my stash on the GPS!! I'll never remember when I'm straight! Hahahah!
Many a stash has been lost that way. Get wasted, then get paranoid and decide to hide the stash in some diabolical location, only not to remember where the next day.
I'm sure they don't want to take it over the border. Don't blame them. I know some California stoners who used to camp in Baja all the time that did the same thing and sent the GPS coordinates to their friends. Geocaching at its finest!
rockyptjoe
Guest
Hey what's the accuracy of the gps nowadays....used to be about 9-10 ft. with WAAS.....that's still a large area to try to find something in the desert after a heavy wind has changed the landscape.....
jerry
Guest
UPS drivers text messaging while tailgating should be a felony too Sub. Every joint sold of Mexican weed puts 25 cents in Guzman's pocket.
If Cali legalizes it and the price drops to 200 a lb. it will put a hurt on the Mexicans.Is that outcome a good thing or a bad for us beach bums is another question.
I think a lot of you guys from the neocon right have a blind spot on this issue.You have hated the hippies since we forced the withdrawal (saving thousands of american lives and speeding up a done deal) from Vietnam and we do love our pot man!
If Cali legalizes it and the price drops to 200 a lb. it will put a hurt on the Mexicans.Is that outcome a good thing or a bad for us beach bums is another question.
I think a lot of you guys from the neocon right have a blind spot on this issue.You have hated the hippies since we forced the withdrawal (saving thousands of american lives and speeding up a done deal) from Vietnam and we do love our pot man!
Kenny
Guest
Anyone whose driving around with so much weed in Mexico, that they need to bury it out in the desert for a return visit, or for friends coming down later...Well I'm surprised their smart of enough to read a GPS, because that's plan old stupid!
Dog gone, someone moved the rock!
Dog gone, someone moved the rock!
Last edited:
S
Submarine
Guest
I thought it was just the paraphernalia they were burying, not the actual pot. Wouldn't it get old? I'm not kidding though, they bury a bag full of crap. I will never caravan with that crew again because the passengers all drink all the way down, and their driver after the border. SO it takes 6 freakin hours to get there because they keep having to stop and pee. THEN they are pulling off and walking into the desert south of "the curve" and I'm like WTF ARE YOU DOING NOW?!?!?!
Fun weekend but I have had my fill of that.
Jerry, yes we will never forgive the hippies for losing the Vietnam war for us. ****ing cowards.
Fun weekend but I have had my fill of that.
Jerry, yes we will never forgive the hippies for losing the Vietnam war for us. ****ing cowards.
S
Submarine
Guest
Stuart: I think we should just be worrying about our own border and focusing our resources there: border patrol, coast guard, use regular military as 'training", even allow private citizens full freedom to protect their property. Make it a 'free fire' zone and you would solve two problems at once.
If Mexico asks for our help, whether it be resources or troops, then I would help them. I would rather they exercise their own sovereignty in dealing with the problem.
But those are just my current thoughts, I can't say It's been an issue I'm particularly concerned with at the moment. Perhaps I will think about it some more...
If Mexico asks for our help, whether it be resources or troops, then I would help them. I would rather they exercise their own sovereignty in dealing with the problem.
But those are just my current thoughts, I can't say It's been an issue I'm particularly concerned with at the moment. Perhaps I will think about it some more...
S
Submarine
Guest
sorry for the short replies Jerry, I'm typing on my work laptop while driving an 18 wheeler. No texting or tailgaiting though.
Lots of points made here. I'll comment on a few.
Stuart, I see the drug thing about the same way you do, had similar experiences in the 60s and 70s and reached many of the same conclusions. I'm encouraged that you've observed that "stoners" are near the bottom of the social hierarchy in our kids' generation. I'm seeing the same thing with my kids and their peers. My wife questions the materialism, but I say get it while you can, you can always look for deeper meaning in life later. (Instead of looking for deeper meaning toward the front end of your life, then having to scramble to catch up the practical needs later on, like I did.) But I wasn't suggesting pot is a "gateway" drug. What I'm suggesting is that legalization will bring increased visibility, which in turn will bring even greater acceptance than we already have.
To the probation officer, I don't know when you were working, but I have it on good authority that simple possession nowadays does not cause a jail sentence. County attorneys' offices establish guidelines for how certain violations are handled in order to set priorities and avoid over-taxing both their own offices and the courts. The protocol for simple possession is adult diversion, not jail. I would assume probation officers get full case reports that include whatever else the guy was doing when police detained and searched him (assault, disorderly conduct, other behaviors that are sometimes hard to prove depending on fact pattern, witness cooperation, etc.), and whether a plea agreement was worked out. If a probationee told you he was just minding his own business when the Man came along and harrassed him with a search and found a half-ounce of weed, he's probably lying.
I'm also quite certain that the government is making a good-faith effort to stamp out drug smuggling and is not using the drug war as a jobs program. Raising taxes is a painful process, and budgets are constantly being challenged, especially when programs aren't producing visible results. The effort that is lacking is our effort to reduce demand. If drug use went away tomorrow, politicians would be ecstatic for they could now fight over how much to give back as a tax cut vs. giving to other favorite programs.
About right-wing neocons and the Vietnam War - like Stuart said, some of us grew up and moved on, and some of us didn't. And remember that neocons have been defined as liberals who got mugged by reality. We neocons still retain a few liberal ideals, including nation-building and the spreading of freedom and democracy around the world. However, neocons are very much against undermining the social fabric. I see stoners of all ages as a class that contributes little and expects to be taken care of, and a society that doesn't have the will to let them suffer the consequences of their own choices. Hence, my opposition to legalizing (and thus encouraging) a substance that rids the indolent of the normal restlessness that could be channled into industry leading to self-respect and self-reliance.
We're failing to win the drug war for the same reason we failed to win in Vietnam - the other side wants to win more than we do. They're willing to do whatever it takes. We aren't.
And yes, Ernesto got a laugh from me too.
Stuart, I see the drug thing about the same way you do, had similar experiences in the 60s and 70s and reached many of the same conclusions. I'm encouraged that you've observed that "stoners" are near the bottom of the social hierarchy in our kids' generation. I'm seeing the same thing with my kids and their peers. My wife questions the materialism, but I say get it while you can, you can always look for deeper meaning in life later. (Instead of looking for deeper meaning toward the front end of your life, then having to scramble to catch up the practical needs later on, like I did.) But I wasn't suggesting pot is a "gateway" drug. What I'm suggesting is that legalization will bring increased visibility, which in turn will bring even greater acceptance than we already have.
To the probation officer, I don't know when you were working, but I have it on good authority that simple possession nowadays does not cause a jail sentence. County attorneys' offices establish guidelines for how certain violations are handled in order to set priorities and avoid over-taxing both their own offices and the courts. The protocol for simple possession is adult diversion, not jail. I would assume probation officers get full case reports that include whatever else the guy was doing when police detained and searched him (assault, disorderly conduct, other behaviors that are sometimes hard to prove depending on fact pattern, witness cooperation, etc.), and whether a plea agreement was worked out. If a probationee told you he was just minding his own business when the Man came along and harrassed him with a search and found a half-ounce of weed, he's probably lying.
I'm also quite certain that the government is making a good-faith effort to stamp out drug smuggling and is not using the drug war as a jobs program. Raising taxes is a painful process, and budgets are constantly being challenged, especially when programs aren't producing visible results. The effort that is lacking is our effort to reduce demand. If drug use went away tomorrow, politicians would be ecstatic for they could now fight over how much to give back as a tax cut vs. giving to other favorite programs.
About right-wing neocons and the Vietnam War - like Stuart said, some of us grew up and moved on, and some of us didn't. And remember that neocons have been defined as liberals who got mugged by reality. We neocons still retain a few liberal ideals, including nation-building and the spreading of freedom and democracy around the world. However, neocons are very much against undermining the social fabric. I see stoners of all ages as a class that contributes little and expects to be taken care of, and a society that doesn't have the will to let them suffer the consequences of their own choices. Hence, my opposition to legalizing (and thus encouraging) a substance that rids the indolent of the normal restlessness that could be channled into industry leading to self-respect and self-reliance.
We're failing to win the drug war for the same reason we failed to win in Vietnam - the other side wants to win more than we do. They're willing to do whatever it takes. We aren't.
And yes, Ernesto got a laugh from me too.