|
|
Post by biminitwisted on May 26, 2024 17:24:21 GMT -5
How do you do that without violating the Constitution, or committing war crimes? The Constitution doesn’t say “thou shalt not kill drug lords or use terrible weapons to wage war.” We’re the ones that decide what is and isn’t a war crime. Its not wrong to kill drug lords, and their families are fair targets because they too target families. I'm pretty sure that's not how law and order works. |
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on May 26, 2024 17:47:00 GMT -5
Vast majority of drugs enter this country through official points of entry. Vast majority of the smugglers are American citizens. Yes, like president Biden with his open borders policy. |
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on May 26, 2024 18:27:20 GMT -5
Vast majority of drugs enter this country through official points of entry. Vast majority of the smugglers are American citizens. Yes, like president Biden with his open borders policy. Well then, Trump shouldn't killed the bipartisan deal. Too bad he did and now owns it all. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on May 26, 2024 18:27:40 GMT -5
Vast majority of drugs enter this country through official points of entry. Vast majority of the smugglers are American citizens. Yes, like president Biden with his open borders policy. Prove you are not a bot. What instrument is more prevalent in the song Piano Man. |
|
|
|
Post by richm on May 26, 2024 18:35:44 GMT -5
I like Billy Joel.
I cant go catch and keep red snapper. So i don’t.
It is pretty simple. Just cause people do stupid things doesnt mean we should make stupid things commonplace.
Maybe if they prosecuted the pimps and dealers and murderers i stead of coddling them? That might fix a few things but the leaders are getting kickbacks so they look the other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on May 26, 2024 19:32:45 GMT -5
Are you willing to assassinate their enablers in the cia also? The former governor of Arkansas was also an enabler. No way! Couldn’t be true! He told us he didn’t even inhale…. 🙄 |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on May 26, 2024 19:43:32 GMT -5
Free will, nobody forced those American citizens to take those substances. Next thing you’ll wanna bomb France for sending that addictive wine. Or send seal team six into Italy for all that artery clogging fresh mozz. Might be mostly true that nobody forced them to take those substances, but were forced to bear the cost of their choices, as a society. It’s been rightly pointed out that local legalization policies haven’t delivered the promised panacea that some are claiming we would see at the national level. I’ve seen nothing that suggests to me that it would actually benefit society. The commercials that are running nonstop promoting legalization are, at best, half truths. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 26, 2024 20:12:21 GMT -5
Vast majority of drugs enter this country through official points of entry. Vast majority of the smugglers are American citizens. What does that have to do with tobacco? You mentioned the 1950s cigarettes, and Virginia. |
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on May 26, 2024 21:23:45 GMT -5
Yes, like president Biden with his open borders policy. Prove you are not a bot. What instrument is more prevalent in the song Piano Man. Only a unionized postal worker would defend bidens border policy. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on May 26, 2024 23:47:42 GMT -5
Vast majority of drugs enter this country through official points of entry. Vast majority of the smugglers are American citizens. What does that have to do with tobacco? You mentioned the 1950s cigarettes, and Virginia. America has its own cartels. Imagine if Canada started bombing Norfolk due to the lung cancer epidemic. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on May 26, 2024 23:49:37 GMT -5
Prove you are not a bot. What instrument is more prevalent in the song Piano Man. Only a unionized postal worker would defend bidens border policy. Thats not an answer. |
|
|
|
Post by bswiv on May 27, 2024 5:43:52 GMT -5
Free will, nobody forced those American citizens to take those substances. Next thing you’ll wanna bomb France for sending that addictive wine. Or send seal team six into Italy for all that artery clogging fresh mozz. Might be mostly true that nobody forced them to take those substances, but were forced to bear the cost of their choices, as a society. It’s been rightly pointed out that local legalization policies haven’t delivered the promised panacea that some are claiming we would see at the national level. I’ve seen nothing that suggests to me that it would actually benefit society. The commercials that are running nonstop promoting legalization are, at best, half truths. I understand your & BULLFROG's points but beg to differ. Caffeine, nicotine & alcohol.......the number 1-2-3 mood altering drugs in this society, though, I forget the actual order. All of them kill, caffeine not so much. And they all cause social disruptions. The history of the temperance movement is one worth some inspection, with attention paid to the arguments the leaders of the movement made. Note that to a great extent that movement was driven by women. Of course fentanyl and meth and any number of other particularly potent drugs are far more dangerous than caffeine. Yet the foundational desire and the addictiveness of them all is basically the same physiologically. Nicotine is particularly addictive if introduced to a young forming brain, by some authorities it being as hard to kick as cocaine. The "greed" argument as applied to the cartels is of no count as the same can be applied to Jack Daniels or Miller Brewing or Maxwell House or......I could go on. In all these instances a consumer demand is being served by a enterprise of a sort, some legal and sanctioned by government, and taxed, some not so and therefore causing us to spend tax dollars to stop them. In all instances, through history, when there is a demand for a item someone will figure out how to fill that demand. Now you can argue that demand is "created"......which to a extent is true. Yet.......a consumer with the choice of a legal product, one of known quality and condition as opposed to one of unknown quality and condition, that consumer will normally take the former rather than the later. This is assuming the government does not intercede with taxes and regulations such that the price of the legal can be significantly undercut by the illegal. Think untaxed cigarettes' being smuggled to this day in this country. It is a VERY complex issue. And if one has some "moral" standard that he is holding his fellow man to, a "moral" standard that the other man may not hold or recognize then there is a impasse. But for the great majority of us ( Is it most of us? Maybe not? ) what we are after is a resetting of the terms and conditions using reason and rationality in a effort to engender a better situation than we've operating at present. And now......I need coffee......my morning drug delivery system of choice, a choice that thankfully is seen neither as immoral nor labeled as illegal by our overloads. |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on May 27, 2024 9:52:33 GMT -5
If you could get rid of the societal costs like the increased dependence and the added health care burden abusers create, and the hazard they are to others when at work or on the highway, etc., I could care less what others choose to do to themselves. Unfortunately, that’s not reality though.
You’re right to point out that there are other legal substances that already have these same problems.
I just don’t happen to agree that having more of them will create fewer societal issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 27, 2024 10:24:55 GMT -5
What does that have to do with tobacco? You mentioned the 1950s cigarettes, and Virginia. America has its own cartels. Imagine if Canada started bombing Norfolk due to the lung cancer epidemic. You equate… tobacco companies with drug cartels? Which means, you also equate tobacco with cocaine and recreational fentanyl. If you think they’re the same, I don’t know how to help you. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 27, 2024 10:31:07 GMT -5
Might be mostly true that nobody forced them to take those substances, but were forced to bear the cost of their choices, as a society. It’s been rightly pointed out that local legalization policies haven’t delivered the promised panacea that some are claiming we would see at the national level. I’ve seen nothing that suggests to me that it would actually benefit society. The commercials that are running nonstop promoting legalization are, at best, half truths. I understand your & BULLFROG's points but beg to differ. Caffeine, nicotine & alcohol.......the number 1-2-3 mood altering drugs in this society, though, I forget the actual order. All of them kill, caffeine not so much. And they all cause social disruptions. The history of the temperance movement is one worth some inspection, with attention paid to the arguments the leaders of the movement made. Note that to a great extent that movement was driven by women. Of course fentanyl and meth and any number of other particularly potent drugs are far more dangerous than caffeine. Yet the foundational desire and the addictiveness of them all is basically the same physiologically. Nicotine is particularly addictive if introduced to a young forming brain, by some authorities it being as hard to kick as cocaine. The "greed" argument as applied to the cartels is of no count as the same can be applied to Jack Daniels or Miller Brewing or Maxwell House or......I could go on. In all these instances a consumer demand is being served by a enterprise of a sort, some legal and sanctioned by government, and taxed, some not so and therefore causing us to spend tax dollars to stop them. In all instances, through history, when there is a demand for a item someone will figure out how to fill that demand. Now you can argue that demand is "created"......which to a extent is true. Yet.......a consumer with the choice of a legal product, one of known quality and condition as opposed to one of unknown quality and condition, that consumer will normally take the former rather than the later. This is assuming the government does not intercede with taxes and regulations such that the price of the legal can be significantly undercut by the illegal. Think untaxed cigarettes' being smuggled to this day in this country. It is a VERY complex issue. And if one has some "moral" standard that he is holding his fellow man to, a "moral" standard that the other man may not hold or recognize then there is a impasse. But for the great majority of us ( Is it most of us? Maybe not? ) what we are after is a resetting of the terms and conditions using reason and rationality in a effort to engender a better situation than we've operating at present. And now......I need coffee......my morning drug delivery system of choice, a choice that thankfully is seen neither as immoral nor labeled as illegal by our overloads. Caffine, nicotine, and alcohol can all be taken in moderation without much ill effect. Cocaine, meth, and recreational fentanyl, cannot. You can sit by a campfire and smoke some fine pipe tobacoo and sip some bourbon in a Coke Zero while enjoying a fire on a summer night and suffer no ill effects (I did so last night). Yet substitute those things and snort some cocaine, smoke some meth, and take a hit of fentanyl and you might instead jump in the pond and drown (I’ve seen that happen before) or go kill your family (seen that happen too). Apples and oranges. All substances are not dangerous. The “legalize pot” crowd depends on the logic of that argument. |
|
