Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX
In 2000, Americans spent about $36 billion on cocaine, $10 billion on heroin, $5.4 billion on methamphetamine, $11 billion on marijuana, and $2.4 billion on other substances."
Source: Abt Associates, "What America's Users Spend on Illegal Drugs 1988-2000" (Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control, December 2001)
I'd legalise cocaine, heroin and meth first, much of the MJ consumption will be home grown and Canadian.
Cocaine and Heroin aren't homegrown AFAIK.
Fuck Israel
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina
Well, it would be rather strange to legalize hard drugs and not legalize the less addictive stuff.  For the sake of logical policymaking, I don't think it could feasibly be implemented like that.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX
It would also be pointless to legalise the soft drugs, since they're fairly irrelevant to the Mexico problem.
Fuck Israel
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6901|do not disturb

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

As long as its Californias problem do either.
Start with crack cocaine and crystal meth.
Well, legalizing pot would probably be the best first step.  The harder, more addictive stuff would require a gradual decriminalization process.
Except I somehow doubt the cartels are making much out of pot, so there is little point in legalising it.
Start with the profitable stuff first and cut their income.
???

That would never happen. Just legalize something that most people want legalized, even people who don't smoke marijuana. Once it is proven that drug legalization is a good thing, then skeptical people might be willing to legalize less socially acceptable drugs.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX
We're trying to deal with the cartels here, not help dimwits enjoy their Saturday night.

Legalising the cartels least profitable product is not going to cause them to cut back on arms purchases or bribery.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-25 05:41:11)

Fuck Israel
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Dilbert_X wrote:

It would also be pointless to legalise the soft drugs, since they're fairly irrelevant to the Mexico problem.
That's assuming the only reason to legalize them is connected to Mexico.

Even if we went with that assumption, you're still incorrect.  Pot is relevant to Mexico's problems, because it is a major trade with connections to the cartels.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6690|North Carolina

Phrozenbot wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, legalizing pot would probably be the best first step.  The harder, more addictive stuff would require a gradual decriminalization process.
Except I somehow doubt the cartels are making much out of pot, so there is little point in legalising it.
Start with the profitable stuff first and cut their income.
???

That would never happen. Just legalize something that most people want legalized, even people who don't smoke marijuana. Once it is proven that drug legalization is a good thing, then skeptical people might be willing to legalize less socially acceptable drugs.
Agreed.

Dilbert_X wrote:

We're trying to deal with the cartels here, not help dimwits enjoy their Saturday night.

Legalising the cartels least profitable product is not going to cause them to cut back on arms purchases or bribery.
True, but legalizing the hard drugs wouldn't either.  For every illegal market you legalize, criminals will find another to work with -- like arms or human trafficking.

...and I seriously doubt that legalizing human trafficking will ever happen (nor should it).

The point is that legalizing drugs does remove a major market from their operations.  Ideally, all drugs would be legal, regulated, and taxed, but it has to be a gradual process starting with the least addictive substances.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-07-26 06:34:38)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard