The Great Mexican Wall

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... I'll point out that there is truth in some of the things ...

Which is a required ingredient in any propaganda: a mixture of truth, semi-truth and lies.

[Robert Roaldi]

We already have to drive on roads with drunk drivers.  Does anyone believe that adding stoned drivers is going to make driving safer?  The new Democrat governor in my state New Jersey is pushing to legalize pot.  He's looking to run for president and wants to be seen as a liberal-progressive.  What a jerk.

This is already true. It has always been true. No one (almost) who wanted drugs has ever had any difficulty obtaining them. Ever. The notion that prohibiting them prevented (or decreased) use is not plausible. Despite "drugs" being illegal almost everywhere on earth, despite the "war" on them, the rise of international drug cartels was never curtailed and you could argue that the very self-described "war" accelerated gang growth.

Wouldn't it make more sense now to observe and learn from the jurisdictions that did decriminalize drugs to see what happened there. Wouldn't it make sense to stop relying on feelings but rather see what actually happens in the real world, given how completely unproductive the current methodology has been.

All this skirts around the issue of why drugs were ever made illegal in the first place, which is far from being obvious. The fundamental notion that drug usage is a supply-side driven phenomenon is suspect. "Pushers" don't force people to take drugs, people chase after dealers with money to BUY drugs.

[Robert Roaldi]

You focus on the wrong factor.

Forget money for a second; consider the ruined lives instead.

Do you really, really believe that if drugs were freely and cheaply available in the local chemist or tobaconist shops, free of dangers from arrest or violence, that the number of folks who would never get out of bed short of crawling out to buy some more junk, would not increase dramatically?

The only way to beat the drugs business is to be serious, arrest the fat cats whose identities I am sure are known to the powers that be, arrest the users and blame them, not give them hugs and more free, alternative crap to divert the dependency to something else. Those dickheads bring it on themselves, and can hardly plead ignorance! As Russ recently pointed out, modern folks don't like to use the word criminal when describing people who commit crime.

As with everything commercial: remove the market and the product vanishes.

America makes so many guns; use them to achieve, at last, some ultimate good!

(Almost time for another Q.E.D.)

Rob

I think that the last century's experience with criminalizing drugs demonstrates that you are wrong. Doing more of the same will NOT lead to a different result. How could it?

[Alan Goldhammer]

Which is a required ingredient in any propaganda: a mixture of truth, semi-truth and lies.

WOW, pick me up off the floor!  You just provided an excellent example of Trumpian rallies!!  I'm sure this is just an accident and would look for you to quickly delete the offending post.

[Jeremy Roussak]

“I will tell you what has carried me to the position I have reached. Our political problems appeared complicated. The  people could make nothing of them… I…reduced them to the simplest terms. The masses realised this and followed me.”

I have made my position crystal clear: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125576.msg1054484#msg1054484. I will not tolerate such comparisons, direct or indirect. Take a holiday.

Jeremy

[Alan Klein]

This is already true. It has always been true. No one (almost) who wanted drugs has ever had any difficulty obtaining them. Ever. The notion that prohibiting them prevented (or decreased) use is not plausible. Despite "drugs" being illegal almost everywhere on earth, despite the "war" on them, the rise of international drug cartels was never curtailed and you could argue that the very self-described "war" accelerated gang growth.

Wouldn't it make more sense now to observe and learn from the jurisdictions that did decriminalize drugs to see what happened there. Wouldn't it make sense to stop relying on feelings but rather see what actually happens in the real world, given how completely unproductive the current methodology has been.

All this skirts around the issue of why drugs were ever made illegal in the first place, which is far from being obvious. The fundamental notion that drug usage is a supply-side driven phenomenon is suspect. "Pushers" don't force people to take drugs, people chase after dealers with money to BUY drugs.

The evidence is in that legalized pot is causing more accidents and deaths on the road.  How can anyone be surprised at that?

[Alan Goldhammer]

The evidence is in that legalized pot is causing more accidents and deaths on the road.  How can anyone be surprised at that?

THIS argues against what you state.  It's makes no difference to me because DUI should be applicable.  From my perspective, if you drink or you smoke, you don't drive.

[Alan Klein]

Once I drove from my home in NY to a club in NJ high on pot.  Strange, I felt that I was driving downhill all the way.  If figured it must be that NY's elevation is higher than NJ's.  Strange, when I drove home, I still felt like I was driving downhill.  Funny how topography works.

All considering afterwards, I really don;t know how I made it there and back without killing myself or someone else.  Anyone who says it's safe to drive on pot just wants pot legalized so they can use it.  But it's no way safer than driving sober. 

[Alan Goldhammer]

Once I drove from my home in NY to a club in NJ high on pot.  Strange, I felt that I was driving downhill all the way.  If figured it must be that NY's elevation is higher than NJ's.  Strange, when I drove home, I still felt like I was driving downhill.  Funny how topography works.

All considering afterwards, I really don;t know how I made it there and back without killing myself or someone else.  Anyone who says it's safe to drive on pot just wants pot legalized so they can use it.  But it's no way safer than driving sober.

That's the key point.  It's not safer and there should be equal penalties DUI.  I've been drug free since 1973 (one of my lab colleagues showed me the data on carcinogens in marijuana smoke (10 fold higher than cigarettes) and that made me stop cold turkey) but even when I did smoke I never drove.  Don't have anything more than a single glass of wine or glass of beer if we go out for dinner either.  Driving while impaired is just too risky.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Anyone who says it's safe to drive on pot...

I hope nobody says that seriously.

[Rob C]

I think that the last century's experience with criminalizing drugs demonstrates that you are wrong. Doing more of the same will NOT lead to a different result. How could it?

What it showed, and is still showing, is that the political and police will to end the damned thing is simply not there. Too many people are happy to take a rake-off and look the other way or, even (understandably) are just too frightened or disillusioned to keep trying to do the right thing. It is always the easy option to look elsewhere for both blame and hard action; that makes everybody feel they are doing something constructive, even if just keeping the idiots at home supplied with their stuff whilst peasants and cartels battle it out somewhere else, in another country.

There was always the option to hit some Afghan poppy fields instead of some fat bastards selling death in the local clubs or street corners of home; and see how well that turned out: it made an entire religion hate you. Forget walls; build more prisons at home and use them. Clean up the domestic mess before playing world cop in those sorts of wars. There are other, more important ones to prevent.

[LesPalenik]

Report from the Governors Highway Safety Association found that 44% of drivers who died and were tested had positive results for drugs in 2016, up from 28% in 2006.

The presence of pot in tested drivers has increased substantially in the past decade, it found, more than the presence of opioids. In 2016, 41% of the drug-positive fatalities showed marijuana in the bloodstream compared with 35% in 2006. But about 20% of the drug-positive drivers had some type of opioid present compared with 17% in 2006. Meanwhile, of the deceased drivers with known alcohol test results, about 38% tested positive for any amount in 2016, a slight drop from 41% a decade earlier.

In Colorado, the number of traffic fatalities in which a driver tested positive for THC increased from 18 in 2013 to 77 in 2016.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-drivers-killed-in-car-crashes-show-traces-of-pot-opioids-in-their-systems-2018-05-31

[Alan Goldhammer]

Report from the Governors Highway Safety Association found that 44% of drivers who died and were tested had positive results for drugs in 2016, up from 28% in 2006.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-drivers-killed-in-car-crashes-show-traces-of-pot-opioids-in-their-systems-2018-05-31

The problem is that THC is fat soluble and stays in the body so the urine test is unreliable in terms of when the pot was smoked.   Heavy users can test positive for 1-3 months after quitting - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_drug_testing  There is no way to figure out if those drivers who were killed and tested positive for THC were still high.

[Robert Roaldi]

Anyone who says it's safe to drive on pot just wants pot legalized so they can use it.  But it's no way safer than driving sober.

Who ever said that?

But I still don't understand what you're suggesting. People who would smoke dope and drive are already doing so, and yes, they should be stopped. (I also think that people who drive tired should be stopped and people who drive on bald tires should be stopped, etc., but we don't do much about any of those.)

But you're tangentially making the case for total prohibition of alcohol. Are you advocating that?

[Robert Roaldi]

What it showed, and is still showing, is that the political and police will to end the damned thing is simply not there. Too many people are happy to take a rake-off and look the other way or, even (understandably) are just too frightened or disillusioned to keep trying to do the right thing. It is always the easy option to look elsewhere for both blame and hard action; that makes everybody feel they are doing something constructive, even if just keeping the idiots at home supplied with their stuff whilst peasants and cartels battle it out somewhere else, in another country.

There was always the option to hit some Afghan poppy fields instead of some fat bastards selling death in the local clubs or street corners of home; and see how well that turned out: it made an entire religion hate you. Forget walls; build more prisons at home and use them. Clean up the domestic mess before playing world cop in those sorts of wars. There are other, more important ones to prevent.

If you're making the case that drug cartels are repulsive, you'll not get an argument here or, I hope, anywhere.

Prohibition of alcohol in the USA fuelled the rise of bootleggers and organized crime. The ending of prohibition ended that business for them. Why not do the same for drug cartels?

We can't keep drugs out of prisons. Prisons have locked doors and we know everyone going in or out. Do you really think we can stop drug trafficking in a free society? Do you think all the police forces in the world stand a chance against that level of black market profit?

[Alan Klein]

...But I still don't understand what you're suggesting. People who would smoke dope and drive are already doing so, and yes, they should be stopped. (I also think that people who drive tired should be stopped and people who drive on bald tires should be stopped, etc., but we don't do much about any of those.)

But you're tangentially making the case for total prohibition of alcohol. Are you advocating that?

I never advocated prohibiting alcohol.  However, adding more driving accidents and fatalities that could effect my family or yours due to stoned drivers on legal recreational pot is not something I'd vote for.  I guess you missed Les's post showing that there are more driving accidents and fatalities in Colorado where they have legalized it.

Here's a copy of Les's post.

[/font]Report from the Governors Highway Safety Association found that 44% of drivers who died and were tested had positive results for drugs in 2016, up from 28% in 2006.

The presence of pot in tested drivers has increased substantially in the past decade, it found, more than the presence of opioids. In 2016, 41% of the drug-positive fatalities showed marijuana in the bloodstream compared with 35% in 2006. But about 20% of the drug-positive drivers had some type of opioid present compared with 17% in 2006. Meanwhile, of the deceased drivers with known alcohol test results, about 38% tested positive for any amount in 2016, a slight drop from 41% a decade earlier.

In Colorado, the number of traffic fatalities in which a driver tested positive for THC increased from 18 in 2013 to 77 in 2016.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/more-drivers-killed-in-car-crashes-show-traces-of-pot-opioids-in-their-systems-2018-05-31

[Alan Klein]

The problem is that THC is fat soluble and stays in the body so the urine test is unreliable in terms of when the pot was smoked.   Heavy users can test positive for 1-3 months after quitting - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_drug_testing  There is no way to figure out if those drivers who were killed and tested positive for THC were still high.

So either:
A: The increase in accidents were caused because the drivers were in fact high at the time the accidents occurred.
or
B. That the 44% of drivers who died and were tested had positive results for drugs weren't high.  It's just that these drivers who died were people who use THC but must be worse drivers than people who don't use THC. What else could account for the high 44%?

I'll go with selection A. 

[Alan Klein]

That's the key point.  It's not safer and there should be equal penalties DUI.  I've been drug free since 1973 (one of my lab colleagues showed me the data on carcinogens in marijuana smoke (10 fold higher than cigarettes) and that made me stop cold turkey) but even when I did smoke I never drove.  Don't have anything more than a single glass of wine or glass of beer if we go out for dinner either.  Driving while impaired is just too risky.

If it's not safer, I don't  want to legalize a substance that will add more carnage on the roads where me and my family drives.   I'm for others freedoms.  But not when their freedom puts me at risk I rather not take.  I have my freedoms as well. 

[Rob C]

If you're making the case that drug cartels are repulsive, you'll not get an argument here or, I hope, anywhere.

Prohibition of alcohol in the USA fuelled the rise of bootleggers and organized crime. The ending of prohibition ended that business for them. Why not do the same for drug cartels?

We can't keep drugs out of prisons. Prisons have locked doors and we know everyone going in or out. Do you really think we can stop drug trafficking in a free society? Do you think all the police forces in the world stand a chance against that level of black market profit?

You are missing or sidestepping my point: it's about the will to beat the problem.

The makers are just one fraction of the whole: the people who run the rings, import, make stuff locally, distribute, they are the problem within the domestic part of the situation. And they are the people who can be dealt with locally. Of course drugs could be kept out of prisons: just as you can keep dangerous materials off aircraft you can prevent them getting into jails. The missing link is the will to do it. That, and penalties to match the consequences of the crimes. Less attention to the "rights" of inmates and a concentration on keeping drugs out of reach would be a start.

The huge profits are only there because the risks are worth taking because the chances of the capos being nabbed are very low. Why? I doubt it's because the police don't have the technology or resources to find them; I think it is because they are kept immune from authority. And where you have a society of dimwits ready and willing to abuse themselves with substances that will probably ruin their lives, it is pointless depending on them to provide solutions. The best you can do is catch them early: toss them out of school or university if that's where they do their thing; let their friends realise it is not fun and games, that it all comes at life-changing price. Set example of consequence.

As for the bootleggers: they hardly kept low profiles. They were popular characters, criminal stars, even. Their immunity was even more obvious than that of today's lot.

A start could be made by investigating the funding of some of those wonderful palaces that grace the Intracoastal Waterway; the funding of some of the larger yachts all over the Mediterranean; yacht clubs have waiting lists, and the last time I heard, the local one wants about €23,000 to join and you still won't get a berth to buy. Wonder about those folks who can buy multi-million pound apartments in Monaco and London, and on and on. By no means do I suggest they are all crooks, but you would be very unlucky not to unearth one if you looked in the right place. As I say, it's a matter of will.

[LesPalenik]

The expectations of coming legalization of pot in Canada are getting ridiculous. Scores of people (mainly women, most likely because men who were interested in the stuff were not deterred so much by the previous ban) are already planning marijuana parties, and getting high on October 17, when it becomes legal. Media are full with promises of fantastic business opportunities.
Once the pot growing becomes an indispensable feature of Canada's economy, Canada will able to compete with Afghanistan in growing the production and markets for this very desired commodity.

Legalized marijuana presents opportunity of a lifetime for Canadian entrepreneurs. Canada is creating a $23 billion business opportunity. And that's just the beginning.

Canadians could also be at the forefront of a growing global business, exporting not only cannabis and its derivatives, but also the technology to grow it.

The cannabis corporations that are now emerging will need accountants, public relations professionals, packagers, security and legal experts. They'll be leasing office space, buying furniture, paying taxes, and hiring lots and lots of people.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-cannabis-greenrush-1.4383010