Say Anything Blog

Will drug dealers and trafficers from Mexico get amnesty now as well since all they are doing is trying to make a living by bring drugs to the US?

Decriminalization of small quantities is a good idea.  And is the right idea.  Focus the enforcement on the real crimes such as trafficing, manufacture, and distribution, not on putting millions of users in jail.

The drug war is a gigantic failure.  It consumes huge amounts of money and if we spent the money on border security, it would effectively prevent most drugs from flowing in anyway.  Let’s spend our resources on protecting our borders from illegal incursions and from the drug AND HUMAN trafficing as well as the identity theft that are our real problems.

That is not to say that drug addiction is not a major problem.  It is just not the Nanny State’s job to protect people from the consequences of their own personal decisions.  Toughen laws on the other crimes that drug addicts commit such as DUI’s, theft, assault, etc., since the drug use is not the problem.  It is when people commit other crimes while on drugs. 

FreeRepublicans.com asked, Will drug dealers and trafficers from Mexico get amnesty now as well since all they are doing is trying to make a living by bring drugs to the US?

It appears that they already do. How many times have we spotted Mexican troops on the U.S. side who were helping drug runners in the past couple of years?

This is not a pure Libertarian move. 

This is a way for fewer people to be listed as criminals so that the autocracy in Mexico can ship more of it’s poor over as an invading force.

This is about preventing claims that they are sending criminals over the border since drugs will be decriminalized. 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions;  lefties remind us of this all the time.

This is about preventing claims that they are sending criminals over the border since drugs will be decriminalized. 

So what? Drugs should be decriminalized in the states, so I have no problem with Mexican drug users coming over here, so long as they do it legally.

As most of you know, I believe that people have a right to ingest anything they wish as an unalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as long as it does not ‘directly’ affect others.

So as long as I don’t crash into anyone, I should be able to drive witha BAC of .20 right?  Are you against DUI incaceration as well? 

Docdave,

I wasn’t refuting your opinions but the actions of the mexican government and their true intent.  You weren’t involved nor a target of my reply. 

robert108 said, The road to hell is paved with good intentions; lefties remind us of this all the time.

Yeah, but the lefties tend to rob Peter to pay Paul when it comes to their "good intentions". This isn’t that. But we’ve already had this conversation and came to a head on this subject before, so I’ll stop there.

Sphagnum said, So as long as I don’t crash into anyone, I should be able to drive witha BAC of .20 right?  Are you against DUI incaceration as well?

Why would you assume that?

We should completely legalize it, including the sale and distribution.  That would get the bad element out of it - the profit would drop.  ADM could bring us a nice crop at a good price.

 We should then tax it heavily, such that it become affordable only to those with incomes.  Want to get high?  Fine - get a job.

 And if someone drives while high, bust them for that.  Not because they were high - but because they drove while they were.

Likwid~

 Doc said that digesting any drug should be legal, I was curious why alcohol would be different.

Doc~

You have shown where Libertarianism turns into Anarchy.  States have the power in this country to  criminalize certain behaviors and they should.  You are politically insane if you think that the government should only be able to enforce BAC laws AFTER their is a crash.  I’d be willing to listen to why teh FEDERAL gov’t should have no jurisdiction over such things, and drugs as well, but holding the opinion that "as long as only one party is involved, there is no crime" is going to lead to a broken and dysfunctional society.  Just ask Holland.

 
States have the broad rights, as they should, to prohibit the use of narcotics and alcohol use.

I don’t think that you toughen laws simply if someone is committing them while under the influence.  I don’t think that I said that, but I did say toughen the crimes that are often drug related as opposed to the use and possession itself.  The reason being that judges can set conditions of these crimes to be treatment for addiction.  And clearly these are actual crimes, not walking around with a dime bag.  And if the person kicks the drug habit, meaning they are much less likely to commit property crimes, etc., they may actually get rehabilitated.  But either way, these people that commit theft, assualt, etc., are clearly criminals, whether the drugs are the reason or not.

Next part is the DUI laws.  First off, please explain to me the difference between .08 and .10 and why the Federal Government refused to send highway dollars back to the states if they didn’t change their DUI laws. 

DUI laws may serve an important purpose to our society of protecting us, but the reality is that their real purpose is to enrich the localities by providing a new source of revenue.  Hence targetting people on holidays and the methods of ensuring convictions, etc.  I understand MADD and the other advocacy groups, but the arbitrary nature of DUI laws target average working folks and fail to take the habitual offenders that are the real danger off the streets.  It is not the guy with the .09 that the police keep targetting to generate revenue, but the guy with the .25 that habitually drives drunk.  There is a huge difference between someone driving drunk and seriously impaired and the guys that the DUI roadblocks target and net their revenues from who have BACs between .08 and .15. 

BTW, make the crime of manslaughter while driving drunk carry 25+ years mandatory and MADD is much better served.  Clearly vehicular manslaugher is vehicular manslaughter.  You kill someone while negligently operating a vehicle, regardless of whether it is due to alcohol or drugs or just inattention, you should get the same sentence.  You are no longer a drunk driver, but a killer.

What is the problem with drunk driving that MADD wants to solve?  It is folks getting killed by drunk drivers.  But guess what, we have laws for people that commit manslaughter.  And vehicular manslaughter while using alcohol is no different from any other kind of negligent homicide. 

Next part is the DUI laws.  First off, please explain to me the difference between .08 and .10 and why the Federal Government refused to send highway dollars back to the states if they didn’t change their DUI laws.

States have the broad rights, as they should, to prohibit the use of narcotics and alcohol use.

Not true at all after the recent US Supreme Court rulings against medicinal Marijuana in Arizona and California.  States have next to no rights.  And this is clearly a huge part of why the drug laws at the Federal level need to be stopped and overturned and rethought and removed.

We are a society that is completely convinced of the ability of government to help solve every problem.  Problem with people using drugs or alcohol, try prohibition.  Problems with automobile crashes by drunks, use the massive Federal Government to dictate how to solve it.

The beauty of having 50 states that each write their own laws as opposed to a one size fits all Federal approach, is that each state is its own incubator to come up with solutions and then states can share ideas and revise them as needed.  The Federal Government has taken away the rights of states to figure out how to solve the alcohol and drug problems as well as how to deal with abortion and even whether they can set their own speed limits or not.  The government no more belongs dictating to the states Drug and Alcohol policy than it does abortion or state tax policy.  I kinda like that Tenth Amendment thing.  Perhaps more folks should read it.

Mexico legalized marijuana? That means there will be more people having Drug Rehab Treatment in the next 5 years. That’s only if they realize their dependency.

So anyone following a drug treatment because they realize using drugs is damaging and can lead to arrest will start using again because now it’s legal?

I disagree with this law. I work in a drug treatment centre and I see everyday what effect these drugs have on people. It’s depressing sometimes when you see how some of them really destroyed their lives and health forever.