Ok. Find someone using or possessing drugs: shot on site. Troops on the borders with orders shoot first. Bet you see on hell of a drop in drug use.Bertster7 wrote:
Of course it is. Which is why no country has ever successfully done so throughout history - including some incredibly brutal regimes.Red Forman wrote:
That's the funny thing really. It's so easy to win.SEREMAKER wrote:
you want it stopped - give me all the resources I ask for and ask NO questions .... then just stay out of my way
Singapore have done a very good job with their policy that does not criminalise users, but forces them to go into rehab. Dealers are executed. But even there they have usage of around 0.5% - most of that heroin.
Yep, and you'd see the rise of a police state.Red Forman wrote:
Ok. Find someone using or possessing drugs: shot on site. Troops on the borders with orders shoot first. Bet you see on hell of a drop in drug use.Bertster7 wrote:
Of course it is. Which is why no country has ever successfully done so throughout history - including some incredibly brutal regimes.Red Forman wrote:
That's the funny thing really. It's so easy to win.
Singapore have done a very good job with their policy that does not criminalise users, but forces them to go into rehab. Dealers are executed. But even there they have usage of around 0.5% - most of that heroin.
I am JUST talking about the war on drugs. The war part. That's it.Turquoise wrote:
Yep, and you'd see the rise of a police state.
Which has been tried. Still has never worked.Red Forman wrote:
Ok. Find someone using or possessing drugs: shot on site. Troops on the borders with orders shoot first. Bet you see on hell of a drop in drug use.Bertster7 wrote:
Of course it is. Which is why no country has ever successfully done so throughout history - including some incredibly brutal regimes.Red Forman wrote:
That's the funny thing really. It's so easy to win.
Singapore have done a very good job with their policy that does not criminalise users, but forces them to go into rehab. Dealers are executed. But even there they have usage of around 0.5% - most of that heroin.
Stalin tried doing that. Drug use rose. In Thailand they have extremely strict laws (including extra-judicial killings by the police), but also huge drugs problems.
Where has a policy like that worked?
The problem is when you give the government the ability to kill people on sight. That's currently only reserved for self-defense, and for good reason.Red Forman wrote:
I am JUST talking about the war on drugs. The war part. That's it.Turquoise wrote:
Yep, and you'd see the rise of a police state.
Executing dealers or leaders of criminal syndicates is one thing, but executing everyone seen with drugs is another.
No, that is not what Stalin did. Not like that.Bertster7 wrote:
Which has been tried. Still has never worked.Red Forman wrote:
Ok. Find someone using or possessing drugs: shot on site. Troops on the borders with orders shoot first. Bet you see on hell of a drop in drug use.Bertster7 wrote:
Of course it is. Which is why no country has ever successfully done so throughout history - including some incredibly brutal regimes.
Singapore have done a very good job with their policy that does not criminalise users, but forces them to go into rehab. Dealers are executed. But even there they have usage of around 0.5% - most of that heroin.
Stalin tried doing that. Drug use rose. In Thailand they have extremely strict laws (including extra-judicial killings by the police), but also huge drugs problems.
Where has a policy like that worked?
Pretty close. If you got caught with drugs, you got sent to the gulag. That's essentially a death sentence. It's not extra-judicial killings, but they don't seem to be working in Thailand.Red Forman wrote:
No, that is not what Stalin did. Not like that.Bertster7 wrote:
Which has been tried. Still has never worked.Red Forman wrote:
Ok. Find someone using or possessing drugs: shot on site. Troops on the borders with orders shoot first. Bet you see on hell of a drop in drug use.
Stalin tried doing that. Drug use rose. In Thailand they have extremely strict laws (including extra-judicial killings by the police), but also huge drugs problems.
Where has a policy like that worked?
Thailand? Come on dude. You don't know for a fact that it couldn't work since it has never been tried like I am suggesting. Like I said, I am talking about the war part.
What makes you think it would work, if it never has anywhere else?Red Forman wrote:
Thailand? Come on dude. You don't know for a fact that it couldn't work since it has never been tried like I am suggesting. Like I said, I am talking about the war part.
My main question for you though, is this: why do you think the government should fight this war? Wouldn't a focus on rehabilitation and regulation make more sense?
I am not saying they should fight this war. I am simply saying you can win the war if you really want to. It would cause other issues of course, but there is no way in my mind that drug use would go down big time.Turquoise wrote:
What makes you think it would work, if it never has anywhere else?Red Forman wrote:
Thailand? Come on dude. You don't know for a fact that it couldn't work since it has never been tried like I am suggesting. Like I said, I am talking about the war part.
My main question for you though, is this: why do you think the government should fight this war? Wouldn't a focus on rehabilitation and regulation make more sense?
I agree with Mister Forman here, however I think that we shouldn't restrict these killings to drug use. We should kill everyone to be honest.
Think about it, if we kill everyone then no one could ever use, grow or sell drugs.
It would also prevent people from drunk-driving, smoking in doors, school shootings, statutory-rape, burglary and other crimes.
Think about it, if we kill everyone then no one could ever use, grow or sell drugs.
It would also prevent people from drunk-driving, smoking in doors, school shootings, statutory-rape, burglary and other crimes.
My god man. I just answered a question. I am not saying they should do it. You guys have issues.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
I agree with Mister Forman here, however I think that we shouldn't restrict these killings to drug use. We should kill everyone to be honest.
Think about it, if we kill everyone then no one could ever use, grow or sell drugs.
It would also prevent people from drunk-driving, smoking in doors, school shootings, statutory-rape, burglary and other crimes.
Fair enough, but the reason why we don't take that approach is because of those "issues." The main one would be the humungous potential for the abuse of power.Red Forman wrote:
I am not saying they should fight this war. I am simply saying you can win the war if you really want to. It would cause other issues of course, but there is no way in my mind that drug use would go down big time.Turquoise wrote:
What makes you think it would work, if it never has anywhere else?Red Forman wrote:
Thailand? Come on dude. You don't know for a fact that it couldn't work since it has never been tried like I am suggesting. Like I said, I am talking about the war part.
My main question for you though, is this: why do you think the government should fight this war? Wouldn't a focus on rehabilitation and regulation make more sense?
Essentially, we have a situation where a large portion of the public would like to end the War on Drugs, but special interests and spineless politicians are against sensible decriminalization laws.
I'm guessing you have no clue as to how harsh Thailands drug crackdowns are. 2000 extra-judicial killings in in one month.Red Forman wrote:
Thailand? Come on dude. You don't know for a fact that it couldn't work since it has never been tried like I am suggesting. Like I said, I am talking about the war part.
The place that has come the closest to winning the war on drugs is Singapore - through rehab schemes for users and executing dealers.
Lots of twisted dictators have tried schemes similar to what you suggest. It doesn't work.
The idea that it will work just because you think it should is extremely naive. Justify how it could work empirically, not just with some empty emotionally driven rhetoric.
I agree. I was just saying the road SERE was going down (at least I think that is what he was saying) would win the war part. That is, if you agree the war part is to stymie drug use.Turquoise wrote:
Fair enough, but the reason why we don't take that approach is because of those "issues." The main one would be the humungous potential for the abuse of power.Red Forman wrote:
I am not saying they should fight this war. I am simply saying you can win the war if you really want to. It would cause other issues of course, but there is no way in my mind that drug use would go down big time.Turquoise wrote:
What makes you think it would work, if it never has anywhere else?
My main question for you though, is this: why do you think the government should fight this war? Wouldn't a focus on rehabilitation and regulation make more sense?
Essentially, we have a situation where a large portion of the public would like to end the War on Drugs, but special interests and spineless politicians are against sensible decriminalization laws.
like i said ........ give me my resourses, ask no questions and stay out of wayRed Forman wrote:
I agree. I was just saying the road SERE was going down (at least I think that is what he was saying) would win the war part. That is, if you agree the war part is to stymie drug use.Turquoise wrote:
Fair enough, but the reason why we don't take that approach is because of those "issues." The main one would be the humungous potential for the abuse of power.Red Forman wrote:
I am not saying they should fight this war. I am simply saying you can win the war if you really want to. It would cause other issues of course, but there is no way in my mind that drug use would go down big time.
Essentially, we have a situation where a large portion of the public would like to end the War on Drugs, but special interests and spineless politicians are against sensible decriminalization laws.
I'll have this shit cleaned in 5 -10 years
Look. Don't tell me that has been done before. It has not. Not to that extreme. For example. A border patrol agent was just killed the other day. (RIP) So, what do you do if you really want to win the war, you line up troops on the border and tell people on the other side you will be shot if you try to cross. No questions. That was your warning. That has NOT been done in this country. Not even close.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm guessing you have no clue as to how harsh Thailands drug crackdowns are. 2000 extra-judicial killings in in one month.Red Forman wrote:
Thailand? Come on dude. You don't know for a fact that it couldn't work since it has never been tried like I am suggesting. Like I said, I am talking about the war part.
The place that has come the closest to winning the war on drugs is Singapore - through rehab schemes for users and executing dealers.
Lots of twisted dictators have tried schemes similar to what you suggest. It doesn't work.
The idea that it will work just because you think it should is extremely naive. Justify how it could work empirically, not just with some empty emotionally driven rhetoric.
That's a bit different from killing everyone found with drugs.Red Forman wrote:
Look. Don't tell me that has been done before. It has not. Not to that extreme. For example. A border patrol agent was just killed the other day. (RIP) So, what do you do if you really want to win the war, you line up troops on the border and tell people on the other side you will be shot if you try to cross. No questions. That was your warning. That has NOT been done in this country. Not even close.Bertster7 wrote:
I'm guessing you have no clue as to how harsh Thailands drug crackdowns are. 2000 extra-judicial killings in in one month.Red Forman wrote:
Thailand? Come on dude. You don't know for a fact that it couldn't work since it has never been tried like I am suggesting. Like I said, I am talking about the war part.
The place that has come the closest to winning the war on drugs is Singapore - through rehab schemes for users and executing dealers.
Lots of twisted dictators have tried schemes similar to what you suggest. It doesn't work.
The idea that it will work just because you think it should is extremely naive. Justify how it could work empirically, not just with some empty emotionally driven rhetoric.
You can feasibly have fierce border security without turning your country into a police state. That much I can agree with.
What you said earlier implied executing anyone within our country found with illegal drugs. That is something I can't support, nor is it something that would really work either -- at least, it wouldn't work in a tolerable way to most people. The abuse of power is eminent when law enforcement is allowed to kill people on sight. It's a shady enough premise when applying it to border security, but in that particular case, it might work.
Even making drug crimes punishable by death after conviction with a fair trial is a dodgy idea, because that inadvertently drives the value of drugs higher, and it also scares users away from seeking help.
So, personally, I'd say your idea is much better when limited to border policy.
Ok. My border policy and your policy of executing dealers. Deal? Sign it.
Um... While I support tougher border security, I think you'll find that legalization of pot would harm the cartels more than anything else.Red Forman wrote:
Ok. My border policy and your policy of executing dealers. Deal? Sign it.
Instead of harshening drug laws, we should end mandatory sentencing for drug offenses (to free up prison space) and decriminalize all of the softer drugs.
No no no. Not talking about that. I am talking how to win....... Oh never mind.Turquoise wrote:
Um... While I support tougher border security, I think you'll find that legalization of pot would harm the cartels more than anything else.Red Forman wrote:
Ok. My border policy and your policy of executing dealers. Deal? Sign it.
Instead of harshening drug laws, we should end mandatory sentencing for drug offenses (to free up prison space) and decriminalize all of the softer drugs.
in my book
as the law stands today - theres no grey area - if you break the law, you break the law
my way is on the punishment side .... its hard for cartels to sell to dealers if no-one wants to buy and hard for cartels to sell to dealers if their are no dealers and hard for the customer and dealer to get drugs if their are no cartels
but everyone wants to pussyfoot around and not get there hands wet and yeah it'll be a little rough at first
as the law stands today - theres no grey area - if you break the law, you break the law
my way is on the punishment side .... its hard for cartels to sell to dealers if no-one wants to buy and hard for cartels to sell to dealers if their are no dealers and hard for the customer and dealer to get drugs if their are no cartels
but everyone wants to pussyfoot around and not get there hands wet and yeah it'll be a little rough at first
To me, a victory in the War on Drugs is ending the marketability of drugs among illegal syndicates. These are groups that are specifically designed to resist law enforcement and combative measures, but you can attack them with something much more powerful by legalizing what they sell.Red Forman wrote:
No no no. Not talking about that. I am talking how to win....... Oh never mind.Turquoise wrote:
Um... While I support tougher border security, I think you'll find that legalization of pot would harm the cartels more than anything else.Red Forman wrote:
Ok. My border policy and your policy of executing dealers. Deal? Sign it.
Instead of harshening drug laws, we should end mandatory sentencing for drug offenses (to free up prison space) and decriminalize all of the softer drugs.
Very few individuals would be interested in selling pot if it was legal because of the drop in value.
Controlling the border is a good thing, but defeating the cartels requires changing the market itself.
But you're putting an awful lot of trust in law enforcement. Erring on the side of punishment requires that the increased power cops are given is used responsibly.SEREMAKER wrote:
in my book
as the law stands today - theres no grey area - if you break the law, you break the law
my way is on the punishment side .... its hard for cartels to sell to dealers if no-one wants to buy and hard for cartels to sell to dealers if their are no dealers and hard for the customer and dealer to get drugs if their are no cartels
but everyone wants to pussyfoot around and not get there hands wet and yeah it'll be a little rough at first
Erring on the side of legalization puts the responsibility in the hands of individuals. I would much rather increase our freedoms than increase the power of the government.
Turq...dude...bro. listen for a second. I know what you are saying. We are (at least I thought we were) talking about the current war on drugs. or at least when it started. What you are saying was/is not part of their mindset. You are taking what I am saying and twisting it into what should be. I am simply saying to win the war they started, what we suggested would work. Legalizing was/is not an option top them.Turquoise wrote:
To me, a victory in the War on Drugs is ending the marketability of drugs among illegal syndicates. These are groups that are specifically designed to resist law enforcement and combative measures, but you can attack them with something much more powerful by legalizing what they sell.Red Forman wrote:
No no no. Not talking about that. I am talking how to win....... Oh never mind.Turquoise wrote:
Um... While I support tougher border security, I think you'll find that legalization of pot would harm the cartels more than anything else.
Instead of harshening drug laws, we should end mandatory sentencing for drug offenses (to free up prison space) and decriminalize all of the softer drugs.
Very few individuals would be interested in selling pot if it was legal because of the drop in value.
Controlling the border is a good thing, but defeating the cartels requires changing the market itself.