Don't we all live like this???

Mexican authorities recently took down another big drug lord--El Chapo. This is the main house where he lived. Don't we all live like this?

Mexican Drug Lord home after being raided - Imgur

This just sickens and saddens me, but it also makes me further understand why they do it. If we Americans are dumb enough to buy the drugs, he's greedy enough to sell it to us.

At least he had the good taste to collect 1911s...!

This is a compelling reason to legalize drugs in this country. All of this nonsense would come to a halt. Our overcrowded prisons would empty out within a month or so. And the folks that take drugs now will continue to take drugs and the non-users would continue to sip beer or whatever they do now.

Crime would be reduced; no murders of drug traffickers/users, gangs wouldn't have anything to sell and fight over, rates of residential burglaries, violent home invasions, and armed robberies would fall. Am I serious? I don't know for sure. However, I think I'd be willing to give it a try. What say you?

Greetings,
Mr. G. Agree fully. Take the money saved from "the war on drugs" and unnecessary incarceration and put it toward education and rehabilitation. Nope, rehab wouldn't "cure" everyone but I'm sure it will lesson the impact on society. We're talking BILLIONS a year here. Drug War Clock | DrugSense

...oh, and I'm sure Mexico wouldn't mind the end of the drug cartel killings to the tune of 1,000s per year.

That drug trade bolsters the Mexican economy

The billions we spend on drugs employs thousands of poor Mexicans.

Greetings,
Mr. S. Similarly the growers/tenders of the poppy fields in Asia and the refiners in central and south America. How is trickle down economics working for THOSE people? Ah, American benevolence.

If we legalize drugs it will un-employ a major US industry , the DEA and court and prison system.

What job could possibly be found for an Ex Judge? or prison guard?

As hard as finding a job for an ex skool teacher.

First of all, how many of you would take up drugs if they were free? I'd say in this group, all the members of the Trawler Group, probably 0. Or maybe a couple of brokers? I've advocated free drugs for addicts since I thought it through in the 80s. Giggitoni has stated it very well. Plus, retraining to outboard mechanics for all the now-useless cops and judges and prosecutors and lawyers. All that money not spent on drugs would supercharge our economy.

I can't see how this wouldn't be an improvement over what doesn't work now.

Greetings,
Mr. FF hit the nail on the head. Follow the money (as always). The war on drugs is BIG business. LE agencies can rationalize almost any budget and get the funds. For profit prisons thrive on the program. Hiring increases all around AND equipping all the new hires. Tens of thousands are employed combating evil drugs while a minuscule percentage are involved in rehabilitation/education. Just another case of treating symptoms not the cause.

If we legalize drugs, I hope we don't waste money on educating. I seriously doubt that there is anyone who does not know that you shouldn't do it. I also don't think we should waste money on endless rehab. For most it is a revolving door.

Strict control of the sellers is about the only way to help the problem. With strict control there will always be some illegal sales just like alcohol and cigarettes.

I also believe in drug testing for welfare recipients. We have enough people disabled through no fault of their own. Those that are victims of their own bad choices should not look to us to fix them.

Education? Hmmmmmmmmm, William Kennedy Smith was in med school when he had unprotected sex by the swimming pool with a total stranger. How's that for education?

Greetings,
Mr. M. While I can see your point, I was using the term "education" in a broader sense. Other than "recreational" (for want of a better term) drug use, the users I know are in serious escape mode. Their lives are in the toilet and the numbness while under the influence is the only "good" life they are aware of. Telling them "Don't do drugs" is laughable. Their response is "What else can I do?" There are too few treatment facilities and even less funding. Your comment regarding a revolving door is correct. Bring them in, dry them out and out the door. That's not rehab.
Uneducated, broken homes, no job prospects, criminal records for some. They're definably skid rowers with no foreseeable futures. Currently, drugs and/or alcohol are their ONLY escape. Yup, they're addicts BUT they're fellow human beings. I know a few who have successfully been through rehab and turned their lives around. One young woman had been through the rehab system three times and she still struggles on a daily basis but she's in school, has her own subsidized housing and is trying to make a go of it. She's only ONE hit away from being back on the street.
Addiction, of any sort is a disease and has to be treated as such. The current treatment is incarceration. Teach 'em a lesson. Get the bums off the street. The BILLIONS of dollars and the time spent on this "war" would go a very long way to both helping these victims AND improving society as a whole.
The question of welfare reform, as you mention, also enters into the picture. Drug testing of welfare recipients-FOR SURE!!!! IF the funding was available you could find out WHY the welfare recipient felt it necessary to use. I suspect in all the cases it's simple escapism.
Alas, I think as Mr. FF stated it'll never happen.

Bad choices can start early. We have been tolerating them for much too long. Sometimes the bad choices started 2 generations ago. There are all kinds of victims. We provide a free public education that many times is completely disregarded. Why is it that two of the most expensive school systems in the US (DC and Chicago) are failing? Throwing money at the problem does not fix it. It has to be fixed on a community level. Unfortunately, the communities have been conditioned to look to the "almighty" government to fix their problems. How has that worked out?

The cycle of bad choices has to be broken. This can take some "tough love", but we have to start some where. Why don't we stop spending money we don't have on the problem. I live in an intercity. I see it manifested almost everyday. We have thrown billions and billions of dollars at the problem for 50 years to no avail. It is time to stop.

Personal responsibility can't be such a hard concept to understand. Before saying that I can't know anything about this, I can assure you that I have personal experience. I have been a volunteer teacher at adult literacy programs, halfway houses, and Habitat for Humanity. I have seen what 2nd, 3rd, and 4th chances have turned out to be. I am faced with druggies and panhandlers every day. They ask for a hand out, but when I tell them that I have the construction project around the corner with work to do none take me up on it.

It's time to stop.

Apparently crystal meth was the very first anti-depressant, widely prescribed in the 40s and later. A more charitable way of looking at this problem is the users are self-medicating.

Make 'em all free. The problems are not the usage but the fact the supply is very expensive so users have to kill and steal to get them. Give the drugs away, ruin the sellers, no more stabbed cab drivers or home invasions. I understand a heroin addict can be productive if he's not up all night stealing and many get bored or fed up with being drugged and eventually get off it. Win and win.

I think we're being confused here. I just showed this to my brother in law and he has a copy of this from 18 months ago and this guy was just busted, So I highly doubt that this stash is his. Doesn't mean it isn't drug $ just not this guy's.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Trawler

Personally, I'm tired of seeing the authorities put a bunch of marijuana, guns and money on a table for a photo op. Take the money out of pot and there goes the thefts, guns and dealers.

IMG2 said:

Personally, I'm tired of seeing the authorities put a bunch of marijuana, guns and money on a table for a photo op. Take the money out of pot and there goes the thefts, guns and dealers.

Click to expand...

I think time/demographics are on our side on this issue. Hopefully, anyhow. Even here in Maryland, a thoroughly Democrat controlled state that has legalized gambling and same sex marriage is struggling to let go of the WoD. It's a hot topic in the current legislative session but the organizations that depend on the continued WoD for their jobs are putting up fierce resistance. It's "for the children", don't you know?

I'm really surprised that the Republicans, who are losing ground in the demographics changes, haven't stolen this issue from the Democrats and run with it. IMHO, ending the WoD is a "conservative" position.

That pile of cash (Billions???) photo was stuck in that original posting but it actually came from a bust many months ago. It also was not Billions, it was millions.

Hey, I'm not one to quibble about whether or not it's Billions or Millions, both are a lot of money to most of us and none of us could probably spend that pile of money in our lifetimes, even if we really tried hard.

Short of buying something like South America, I doubt I could spend it all.

It'd be fun trying though.

Xsbank said:

I've advocated free drugs for addicts since I thought it through in the 80s. Giggitoni has stated it very well.

Click to expand...

I think you're misrepresenting another's position. You seem to be the only one here advocating 'free' drugs. And who do you propose pays for these 'free' drugs? Taxpayers? If that's the case, they'd be far from free.

Who wants their surgeon on drugs? Who wants a drugged pilot? LEO? Air Traffic Controller? How about a stoner bus driver? Coach or educator? Amusement park ride operator? Bridge operator?

Where do we draw the line? I don't want to rely on these people for my or my family's safety or protection.

FlyWright said:

Who wants their surgeon on drugs? Who wants a drugged pilot? LEO? Air Traffic Controller? How about a stoner bus driver? Coach or educator? Amusement park ride operator? Bridge operator?

Where do we draw the line? I don't want to rely on these people for my or my family's safety or protection.

Click to expand...

If the WoD ends, do you suppose that the people on whom you rely for your or your family's safety are any more likely to perform their duties stoned than they are currently likely to perform them drunk? Or under the influence of any of a myriad of currently legal, prescription opiates?

You seem to be relying on one of the Drug Warriors long running false arguments -"If drugs are legal, everyone will be stoned all the time."

I seriously doubt that there is anyone who does not know that you shouldn't do it.

SO?

Many Md are users , even Johns Hopkins operated while taking maint doses of his favorite narcotic.

Folks that wish to read about all Drugs should get a copy of the Consumer Reports tome.

BaltimoreLurker said:

If the WoD ends, do you suppose that the people on whom you rely for your or your family's safety are any more likely to perform their duties stoned than they are currently likely to perform them drunk? Or under the influence of any of a myriad of currently legal, prescription opiates?

You seem to be relying on one of the Drug Warriors long running false arguments -"If drugs are legal, everyone will be stoned all the time."

Click to expand...

Do you understand the long term affects of regular weed use? Have you ever studied it? Here's a succinct article on the facts.

Marijuana Users Have Abnormal Brain Structure and Poor Memory: Northwestern University News

I never limited my position on drug use by these professionals to only those who could be stoned on the job. It's the memory loss and brain function changes what come after long term use that needs to be addresses. And where will tomorrow's professionals come from if our teens decide to partake in this 'legal' weed?

How do we measure for drug levels in the field by LEOs during vehicle stops? Should we just allow all stoners to drive anytime under any conditions, regardless of THC levels in their system? How much is too much? What activities should be restricted during drug use? These are tough issues that need to be addressed before giving carte blanche to the masses seeking legalized drug use.

I'm all for relaxing the laws on recreational use of SOME drugs by SOME members of society, but feel strongly that we need to continue to prohibit its use by safety-related and LEO positions. I don't want my surgeon, pilot, cabbie, bus driver, educator, firefighter, nurse, heavy equipment operator, etc suffering from brain dysfunction as a result of unbridled and legalized drug use. Do you?

FlyWright said:

Do you understand the long term affects of regular weed use? Have you ever studied it? Here's a succinct article on the facts.

Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that everyone, much less anyone, HAS to smoke marijuana. Just like they don't have to damage their brain, heart, pancreas, liver, immune system or increase their risk of cancer by drinking alcohol. It's the same personal responsibility issue. Handle your intoxicants or they will handle you.

Drink, or don't. Smoke, or don't. But do it responsibly or face the consequences.

MJ should be treated like alcohol - not for sale to minors and not for use when operating in a public trust position. The same people that produce today's drug tests (and are big advocates of mandatory drug tests for welfare and unemployment recipients, AKA - crony capitalism, again) will have a road side test for LEOs as soon as the market demands it.

As I mentioned earlier - I'm a conservative, not a Republican or a Democrat and certainly not a nanny state Puritan dictating morals to others. I believe in staying out of other people's personal business. Correct me if I've got "conservative" wrong.

I'm not trying to define your political allegiance and I could not possibly care less what your pronounced alliance is. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

I'll tell you what's happening in my state of California. Out here, they're giving prescriptions to 16 year old kids for marijuana. I know because I have neighbor kids, 20 and 17 who have scripts and have had them for over a year. I know for a fact that in this family's case, there are 'counselors' supporting this medical weed use against the wishes of the parents. The legal users in CA, WA and CO are out there driving on the roads under the influence without a measurable method to weed out (pun intended) those under the influence. I think you'd sing a different tune if your loved one was killed by a stoner out for a pleasure drive. It's happening now.

As far as the welfare and unemployed benefits are concerned, if they have the money and choose to do drugs, then they can step out of line for my tax dollars. When they clean up, then get back in line.

I help a lot of folks who need a helping hand. I don't blow my own horn about it, but I help where I see a need and can contribute. If a panhandler chooses to smoke cigarettes, that's his choice. But if he's got enough money to support his $10 per day habit, he doesn't need my money for food. He makes a choice. He lives with the consequences. I'm not telling him not to smoke...just that he won't get my money because he does. IMO, it should be the same with our taxpayers' money handouts.

OK. How about if we look at it like this: All of the following are bad health risks - alcohol, tobacco, sugary drinks, red meat, trans-fats, motorcycles, fast cars, hang gliding, private aviation.

Who gets to decide if I partake of any of these activities? Me or the State?

Bad stuff happens. We live with it. If a minority of morons can't control their bad habits the State has no right, neither God given nor constitutionally, to prohibit the vast majority of us from imbibing if we so choose.

As for subsidizing the drug testing industry, why stop at testing only welfare and unemployment recipients? If your justification for testing them is because they receive your tax dollars, then we should test every elected official, every civil servant and every Gov't contractor. Every one of them lives off of your tax dollars. I know for a fact that many of them drink, smoke, do drugs, drive fast, eat red meat, and never visit a gym. Most of them get tax payer funded health care too. If they are going to engage in risky behavior I should not have to pay for their health care either, right?

How far do you want to take this? I'll point out the BS & hypocrisy of the Puritan nanny state, controlling do-gooders any time you want to start telling me what I can and can't put into my own body.