Trump calls for 'war'

a reply to: vonclod

Portugal has had good results with such. Unfortunately America is far to prude to humor viewing drug addiction as a medical problem, or a mental health issue. Better to send them to jail and pay 30,000+ a year for them to live in a cell, and if they do get released, further their burden on society.

Personally, I'm for decreasing tax spending across the board while increasing tax revenue (in optional ways, not income). Because, I know many people on both sides of the aisle forget, but we're trillions in debt and both parties are just as bad at perpetuated said debt.

a reply to: StallionDuck
He is in a tough spot, the cartels have more power and influence than him. There would be catastrophic bloodshed, many innocent will die, much more than currently. I'm not saying he should just roll over, but rash decisions are not going to fix anything.

In the meantime..stay out of Mexico perhaps.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yeah but the war on drugs just locks people up. Being more flexible on Mary Jane will stop a lot of that. For example, getting pulled over and busted with a little bag of weed shouldn't get jail time. If it's legalized, it won't be long before it gets diluted and filtered and taxed. Sure the taxes might bring in money, but your normal smokers aren't gonna like the dialed back ingredients and we will eventually be back in the same predicament we're already in. IMO

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It's very telling that the Mexican President doesn't want to bother going against these cartels. They rather give them hugs... apparently. Trump is practically begging this guy. All he has to do is say the word. We'll go in, no questions asked. They wont even have to take care of it themselves.

It was met with a firm NO

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador refused that approach, saying at a Tuesday news conference, "The worst thing you can have is war."

"We declared war, and it didn't work," Lopez Obrador said, referring to the policies of previous administrations. "That is not an option."

WTF! This guy has to be on the take or he's scared $#!%less for his own life. That's really fricken sad. Children were burned alive and they don't care.

'Hugs not Bullets'.... Is that seriously their answer?

If they don't agree on our help or do something themselves, we should step in and take care of it ourselves. When we're done, we can force a government change while at the same time, find out who's responsible for assisting with this madness on our side and hang every single one for treason against the USofA.

I as well feel that there would be a lot of CIA - FBI - and Political leaders hanging high.

When I was in Afghanistan the first time, we were burning the poppy fields.

Then, we realized those poppy farmers were our only real/significant source of intel and "good-will."

They were also some of the few people making money, offering jobs that paid and creating somewhat "safe" places for civilians.

We "adjusted" our policy and started stacking tali bodies all of a sudden. Imagine that!

Now some shenanigans went on as well but I'm just trying to point out that a shooting war is probably the last thing anyone who's been in one would want. Trump? Not so much.

The solution to this issue does NOT involve prohibition. That just enriches the cartels. Legalize and control the means of production, distribution and sale. Tax it all. Viola! Cartels out of business.

a reply to: shooterbrody

you are right about the "youth" vote
it would be taken away in an instant with legalization

It sounds shallow on the surface that many of the youth would have their vote swayed by such a thing... And for many of the youth it is (case in point the kids who literally wear it on their sleeve with the leafs on their cloths or God forbid a tattoo).

But for some young voters, it's really just an issue of frustration with antiquated laws that just cost the nation money with no benefit. They're tired of demagogues towing a line just to appease some people who feel their lifestyles should be pushed on the rest of the nation via law.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

I think you misread my post.

I'm all for legalizing the big W but legalizing isn't the answer here.

Many of you guys think that this will sort out the problem. It wont. You can't legalize Heroin - Coke - Meth.. "They'll just find their fix elsewhere". It'll be a hell of a lot harder without the cartels supplying it enmasse!

1 - Launch a volley of strategic missiles and take out every known cartel stronghold in Mexico.
2 - Releve the current Mexican administration of their position of power.
3 - Launch a massive investigation on who's who involved in this cartel/drug trade.
4 - Bring all Mexican and American officials involved with this terrorism to justice.
5 - Open FREE centers around the country for habitual users so they can get help.
6 - Assist Mexico over a 5-10 year period in getting their government and economy on track.

Whoever can't see the benefits of this.... I just don't know what to say other than, 'do you really care if there is a change or not'?


Legalizing weed isn't the answer. That's a silly, mindless answer.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
Agree'd

Was going to bring up Portugal, but the naysayers say it's "not America" they won't even entertain the idea.

Didn't Daddy Bush send an F-16 Falcon to Mexico, which launched a missile that took out a drug cartel king, his mansion and his entire family? Did that really happen or was that just an urban myth made up by Tom Clancy?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: StallionDuck

Take down one cartel and ten more will take there place, who are more violent and use far more brutal tactics to assert their power, than the original.

There's just to much money involved in the US illegal drug trade to ever be able to shut it down by force.

The only way anyone could ever gain control of this situation, is if the US federal government decided to legalize and regulate the drug trade.

Yeah sure. Go after them and eradicate them or join in their game, make it legal, and take away their cash crop in America. Either way a war would be coming. But with your way, when the war is done, every drug available is still legal. Very stupid.

a reply to: StallionDuck

Legalizing weed isn't the answer. That's a silly, mindless answer.

There is no end all be all answer or solution.

But legalization delivers a blow without spending money, but rather inversely making it.

You can bomb all the cartels you want, and new ones will pop up. It's been proven, and again, this is a war that's been waged for decades.

Mexico, and their people have to want to fix their problems. We cannot do it for them. When's the last time US intervention/regime change has been A-successful, B-efficient, C-beneficial?

Going to war with the cartels would turn Mexico into the new Iraq. A literal hellhole, it would turn that place upside down because so many of its citizens are in the drug game.
Soldiers of fortune would flock from south America and central America paid off by cartels, they have skin in the game too.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

I think you misread my post.

Maybe. Sorry if I did.

I was mostly responding to your statement that we cannot legalize certain types of drugs. We can. We should. All of them.

originally posted by: StallionDuck
I'm all for legalizing the big W but legalizing isn't the answer here.

Many of you guys think that this will sort out the problem. It wont. You can't legalize Heroin - Coke - Meth.. "They'll just find their fix elsewhere". It'll be a hell of a lot harder without the cartels supplying it enmasse!

1 - Launch a volley of strategic missiles and take out every known cartel stronghold in Mexico.
2 - Releve the current Mexican administration of their position of power.
3 - Launch a massive investigation on who's who involved in this cartel/drug trade.
4 - Bring all Mexican and American officials involved with this terrorism to justice.
5 - Open FREE centers around the country for habitual users so they can get help.
6 - Assist Mexico over a 5-10 year period in getting their government and economy on track.

Whoever can't see the benefits of this.... I just don't know what to say other than, 'do you really care if there is a change or not'?


Legalizing weed isn't the answer. That's a silly, mindless answer.

LOL.

Spoken like someone who truly has no clue what a "volley of strategic missiles," is.

Or, what that would mean for my sons.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

I agree to an extent. Slow death vs a quick one... The slow one will last a whole lot longer and will kill way more people in the end.

It has to be faced and dealt with on multiple fronts. There is no one solution but you can't exclude a serious solution like making craters where cartel strongholds stand.

It's like the prison system. It'll always grow year by year until we educate and release non-life threatening prisoners vs parolling them with such tough restrictions where they will just going back into the system.

In this, we need to hit it from every angle possible.

Education - Industry - Economy - Total destruction of cartel strongholds and positions of power.

a reply to: StallionDuck

I'm not convinced that this attack was drug cartel related.

These people were a polygamist religious group, separate from the Church of Later Day Saints. It could have been a hate crime because of the polygamy.

Wouldn't a cartel kidnap the young women and children, maybe for ransom, maybe for trafficking?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Not funny when you see them shaking on your street corner.

originally posted by: LSU2018
They're also pushing much harder drugs like heroine and coc aine across our borders and making much more money from it, or so I would think. Can't legalize those,

Sure you can...

I would go so far as to argue that any law making things like this illegal is unConstitutional on its face, but would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Proof?

What was required for the one single precedent we actually have on the subject - Prohibition?

a reply to: ChefFox
Weed junkies..

a reply to: strongfp

Not really.