It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama set to unveil Mexico border drugs/guns plan

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by free2live
 


What we're discussing is central to the thread. If drugs should be illegal then Obama is probably doing the right thing. If they should be legal then he's only wasting our money and taking away our individual rights.

Also, Mike, I hate to sound mean, but I look at this from an individual rights perspective. Just because they can't handle them doesn't mean that I, a more responsible person, should be deprived of rights and liberties. Your friends and family made their irresponsible choices and suffered accordingly. Those weren't my choices and I shouldn't have to be forced by the law to suffer for them just as you shouldn't have to be forced by the law to have your favorite foods banned because some obese people couldn't handle them being legal.

My only compassionate arguments come into play because I think that they would have been better off if these drugs were legal. At the very least, you can't claim that they'd be any worse off since they allegedly destroyed their lives while they were illegal and overdose is more of a problem when they're illegal. It's also not very smart to claim that it would be a more widespread problem if they were legalized; not very many people are going to go, 'Gee, cracks legal. I think I'm gonna go become an addict now!' People that are going to become crack addicts are probably going to do it whether the drugs are legal or not.

[edit on 3/24/09 by RedDragon]

[edit on 3/24/09 by RedDragon]

[edit on 3/24/09 by RedDragon]




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by RedDragon
 


Yes their lives would have been just as ruined. Methamphetamines and Crack are very cheap. The psychological affects are overwhelming. Total devotion and dependence on the drug occurs at the cost of relationships with family and at the cost of their careers.

Tobacco does not remotely affect people psychologically on the same scale as coc aine, heroin, or methamphetamines.

They simply cannot be legalized as uncontrolled substances for recreational use.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Alcohol, scientifically at least, is about as bad as coc aine.

Anecdotally, while I don't use it myself, I've known people to # themselves over because of coc aine but I've also known people to use it responsibly.

You never hear about the people that use illegal drugs responsibly because they have very good reason not to make it known. You do hear about the people that can't use them responsibly because they're unable to not make their use known.

This skews peoples' opinions about how bad illegal drugs are relative to alcohol.

If all you ever heard about alcohol was stories of drunk driving and alcoholics, I'm sure your feelings about it would be the same as they are of most illegal drugs.

Instead, you see glorification of it in movies, TV, advertisements, etc. and get to drink at high school parties growing up. If many illegal drugs were put into the same context, peoples' opinions on them would change.

You can see this happen with marijuana actually. People in the 50s thought it would make you go crazy and kill people. Now that the hysteria about it is gone for most people, most people see it as more akin to alcohol. Even that signifies that there is still plenty of hysteria around because it's only a fraction as dangerous as alcohol.

[edit on 3/24/09 by RedDragon]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by RedDragon
 


If were going to make this an individual rights issue, what about child porn, pedophilia, beastiality, class III weapons, dangerous wild animals as pets, necrophilia, CBRN agents/materials, polygamy, etc.?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


I don't actually have a problem with most of those. If a guy really wants to # a horse then that's OK with me. It doesn't mean I have to personally accept his behavior but I think he should be free to do it. I think people should be free to do things that I don't like just as I think they should be free to say things I don't like. Same with polygamy, prostitution, etc.

Some of the things you mentioned involuntarily harm other people than the person making the choice to do them so I wouldn't be OK with them being legal. Ideally, people should be free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt other people.

[edit on 3/24/09 by RedDragon]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


And i have seen many never get help, and never recover.

I believe that you can compare cigarettes to heroin at least one way and that is the addiction effect. Any doctor will tell you that cigarettes are more addicting than heroin and a much harder addiction to overcome. I'll tell you one thing if they made cigarettes illegal, i'd probably more than likely be arrested.

I don't know to what degree you've seen a person consumed by meth, crack, or heroin, but i have seen alcholics lose their, jobs, their families, everything, end up homeless in the street and die there. Alcohol can do some serious damage to people that can't handle and sometimes to those who don't even drink it.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by RedDragon
 


If were going to make this an individual rights issue, what about child porn, pedophilia, beastiality, class III weapons, dangerous wild animals as pets, necrophilia, CBRN agents/materials, polygamy, etc.?



Child porn and pedophilia obviously hurt the child. So that can't be compared. As red dragon said, if someone wants to have sex with a horse, so be it. Class III weapons? Sure, we have every right. Dangerous wild animals as pets would potentially hurt others. Necrophilia would also cause pain/angst to others (family of the dead, etc.) CBRN agents no one should have... And what is wrong with polygamy? You're not helping your case.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedDragon
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


I don't actually have a problem with most of those. If a guy really wants to # a horse then that's OK with me. It doesn't mean I have to personally accept his behavior but I think he should be free to do it. I think people should be free to do things that I don't like just as I think they should be free to say things I don't like. Same with polygamy, prostitution, etc.

Some of the things you mentioned involuntarily harm other people than the person making the choice to do them so I wouldn't be OK with them being legal. Ideally, people should be free to do what they want as long as they don't hurt other people.

[edit on 3/24/09 by RedDragon]


Are you familiar with the concept of "Social Contract"?

Basically our civil rights and liberties are not natural rights, but guaranteed by Social Contract. In the case of the US, the basis of our social contract is the Bill of Rights.

If ideally people should be free to do as they want shouldn't people be able to enter into a Social Contract? Specifically a contract that upholds the rule of law and maintains social order for the common good.

Meaning that the society in that contract controls what civil rights and liberties exist. Which would include making substance abuse, among other things, illegal so that social order would maintained for the common good.

If ideally people should be free to do as they want shouldn't that include the general will doing what is best for social order and the common good?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS


Are you familiar with the concept of "Social Contract"?

Basically our civil rights and liberties are not natural rights, but guaranteed by Social Contract. In the case of the US, the basis of our social contract is the Bill of Rights.

If ideally people should be free to do as they want shouldn't people be able to enter into a Social Contract? Specifically a contract that upholds the rule of law and maintains social order for the common good.

Meaning that the society in that contract controls what civil rights and liberties exist. Which would include making substance abuse, among other things, illegal so that social order would maintained for the common good.

If ideally people should be free to do as they want shouldn't that include the general will doing what is best for social order and the common good?



1. How does making 'substance abuse' illegal maintain social order? Of course, this is considering alcohol is illegal too, right?
EDIT: And tobacco, and caffeine, and advil? all of which can be 'abused substances'.
2. What you are describing is majority rule. And that is bad.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by free2live]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by free2live
 


What I am describing is the system in place in this country.

My point deals with rights.

Our rights are not guaranteed by nature. The only thing a state of nature guarantees is " The war of all against all".

Our civil rights are guaranteed by social contract.

The general will or civil society by entering into social contract subjects itself to the rule of law. Members of civil society are responsible for obeying that law.

If someone truly believes people should be able to do as they want, then civil societies should be able to enter into social contracts. Individuals of such societies who don't agree with the social contract should be free to abdicate from that society and its social contract.

In other words if someone truly wants to turn controlled substances into uncontrolled substances for recreational use, it might be best that they abdicate from the society that finds the substances disruptive to social order.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
There is a relatively simple solution to this problem: Remove profitability (i don't know if the new drug T&C's allow me to say what i mean by that but i think everyone will get the general idea). It worked on the gangsters in the 1930's and will work on these wannabe Al Capones.

TheAssociate



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 




Our rights are not guaranteed by nature. The only thing a state of nature guarantees is " The war of all against all".


I don't quite understand what you are getting at. Would you disagree that we have inalienable rights? (not saying that drug consumption would be one of these)

Alright, lets take for granted that I agree with you on this post. You neglected to explain why it is better for society to keep "abused substances" illegal (keep in mind that alcohol, caffeine, tobacco and other "substances" such as aspirin are all substances able to be abused). Logic says otherwise. As stated before, look at alcohol prohibition. It still doesn't work.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
There is a relatively simple solution to this problem: Remove profitability (i don't know if the new drug T&C's allow me to say what i mean by that but i think everyone will get the general idea). It worked on the gangsters in the 1930's and will work on these wannabe Al Capones.

TheAssociate


I don't see why this couldn't be elaborated on... It's easy. These drug cartels make ridiculous money selling illegal drugs on the black market. Get rid of the black market for marijuana, coc aine, and other drugs, and the cartels will dissolve... Legalizing is a surefire way of getting rid of the black market. Of course, (this also has been stated before) it could be well regulated, much like alcohol and tobacco both are.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by free2live
 


Personally I think there should be certain ideal inalienable rights, but Nature does not guarantee them.

My point with the social contract was that society decides what is legal and illegal. The general will determines law not the individual will.

I had already presented my own personal views on the subject but when the topic of individual rights presented itself I began to argue that people have as much right to deny something as a society. In this case society making specific substances illegal.

Now both you and I know that society and individuals are not easily persuaded by logos. Both of us could throw facts and figures, that are easily manipulated, around all day but at the end of it people are going choose primarily based on pathos and ethos.

On the other hand to argue that we should legalize based on the idea that the law doesn't stop it is a fallacy. We have laws against murder yet they happen. Laws don't stop anything. It is the responsibility of members of society to follow and enforce the law. What laws do is help identify those in society who violate the social contract that maintains order.

The cartels and the zetas will not simply vanish if drugs were legalized. They would survive as the mafia has. Organized crime syndicates are a facet of humanity. There will always be a black market for illegal goods and services. The nature of the goods and services may change but organized crime will continue. Organized crime operates as an underground "state of nature" opposed to the order of a social contract.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   
All I know is, when Bush was in office, I didn't hear hardly anything about the war on drugs. Now that Obama is president, the media has been showing nothing but the war on drugs. And then Forbes puts a drug lord in the top richest people in the world's list... This is the scape goat that will be used to slowly, but surely disarm the American citizens.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by doorbell412
 


When Bush was in office the Cartels weren't waging a full scale war in Mexico. If the situation that is now playing out wasn't happening then we would be going about it as we usually do.

That would be ignoring it.

We aren't going to be disarmed, there will not be martial law and the military won't be roaming the street policing the people.

I recall alot of threads here last year where people accused W of trying to impose laws that would impose a police state. That fell through now everyone jumped off the W is evil bandwagon onto the Obama is evil bandwagon.

I'm sure in 4 years if a new President is elected then the same will be said of him or her.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by RedDragon
 


If were going to make this an individual rights issue, what about child porn, pedophilia, beastiality, class III weapons, dangerous wild animals as pets, necrophilia, CBRN agents/materials, polygamy, etc.?



Personal drug use only physically hurts the user, and therefore is not even comparable to the crimes you are presenting. You are taking a stance the the drugs are to blame and not the user, as if people shouldnt be responsible for their actions.

I agree with you that users should be given psychological treatment, but good luck getting our hard earned tax dollars to pay for that. Legalize it all, I say. Let people reap what they sew.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Inalienable rights are just that, guaranteed by nature.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. I guess society rejects illicit substances, but there is definitely a reason for this, and it is not all of society or even close by any means.

I think it is illegal more because the federal government telling us what is good for us, producing propaganda and stigmatizing these things. (again, alcohol is worse then many of these illicit drugs, but still legal)

13 states have legalized the medical use of one of these substances, through ballot measures. California has now legalized it completely. 'Society' in all of these states voted for it.

Now, the federal ban, kosher? I hardly think that is the will of society as a whole. States rights!



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


I agree, how stupid are the people that have been elected? 99% of the weapons that the cartels are using are from Central America!! Guess who sold most of those weapons to the people there.....THE US GOVERNMENT!!

I can say from first hand experience that most every weapon that I have seen with my own eyes, there in Mexico, has not come from US gun dealers. They are using full Auto weapons, crap that they either bought from Ven,Col,Nic, one of those countries.

Fact is that Obama is after our rights, there is a change coming and the Government is VERY worried about "Joe six pack" and his buddies.

Be prepared.

-Government Contractor
Director of Special Projects



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

Build a damn wall you morons !!! (Speaking to the government)
How hard is this for politicians to figure out !!!????

I bet it will employ lots of AMERICAN workers too.


Amen. That and a few joint military ops between Mexico and some US special forces could wipe out the cartels. The only reason these guys are still in business is because they're being ALLOWED to stay in business.


I think I have to agree with both these statements. This is out of hand big time, but if they cross the border with their guns then it's open season. You still have a right to protect you and yours.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join