DEA: Record violence in Mexico "a sign of success in the fight against drugs"

I only gave my opinion on what came out of Michelle Leonhart's mouth.
Yeah. That was the borderline-troll-thread part.

Impossible to draw cause and effect? Not really. The reason why people are killing themselves over illegal drugs is because they are illegal. That's simply a byproduct of drug prohibition.
Tell me: warfare over cocaine, or warfare over oil? Which kills more people? The second one.

Yawn. Too easy. :coffee:
 
Figured that was obvious.

Oil is legal. Yet the wars fought over it are a lot more devastating than wars fought over cocaine. Work it out.
 
Oil is legal. Yet the wars fought over it are a lot more devastating than wars fought over cocaine. Work it out.

Oil runs the world's economy. That's why wars are fought for it.

Coca, poppy and marijuana are just plants...
 
If that's the case, how come this only really has happened since 2006?

Mexicans have been killing each other for drugs long before 2006. That was simply the year Calderon started what is now his 5-year Jorge Bush impersonation.

That, and you can look at other countries too to find lots of violence. Nicaragua, Colombia, Guatemala...
 
Yeah. That was the borderline-troll-thread part.

Well, I'm sorry if you find other opinions troll-ish. Your problem, not mine.

Tell me: warfare over cocaine, or warfare over oil? Which kills more people? The second one.

Yawn. Too easy. :coffee:

Yeah, it's too easy to point out the many things wrong with that analogy.

Most importantly, that when cocaine was legal, there were no wars fought over it.
 
Coca, poppy and marijuana are just plants...
.....that are far more profitable per pound than oil, and would remain more profitable than oil if they were legalized.

sorry, but it still aint obvious - what does oil have to do with drug war violence?
Oil is proof that legalizing something is not likely to reduce the violence being waged over it.

Yeah, it's too easy to point out the many things wrong with that analogy.

Most importantly, that when cocaine was legal, there were no wars fought over it.
There were. Just none that you've heard of. Lots of wars have been fought over drugs for much of human history. While those drugs were legal. Tobacco and opium were heavily involved in the American Revolution. Naturally you've heard of the Opium Wars. In the 1800's, the opium trade was one of the British Empire's largest sources of revenue. Legal drugs have in fact been directly responsible for funding a lot of violence throughout history. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

So, what's the next thing that's allegedly wrong with my argument? You did say there were several. Show me whatcha got.
 
Yesssss........so if legal things can be fought over, then where's the logic in assuming that legalizing something is going to stop wars being fought over it?
 
Yesssss........so if legal things can be fought over, then where's the logic in assuming that legalizing something is going to stop wars being fought over it?

Fail.

You comparison is completely invalid. You do realize that you can't just grow a new crop of oil every few months, right? So not only is it the single most important commodity (after water and food) on earth, but it is also finite and concentrated in a few areas. Sounds like a recipe for war.

On the other hand, poppies, coca, pot... These can be grown by any idiot with a hundred bucks and some time to kill. They are extremely profitable, but in no way shape or form comparable to oil. Now, if you start selling them in pharmacies instead of street corners, that takes the gangbangers out of the equation, which certainly helps reduce violence.

Yesssss........so if legal things can be fought over, then where's the logic in assuming that legalizing something is going to stop wars being fought over it?
Now i know you love to argue semantics, so let me state for the record: Dawgphood never implied that legalizing something removes all violence from it. What he meant was plain for anyone with half a brain to see. Meeting or exceeding these requirements, you obviously know what he meant, so why not argue the topic at hand, not some absurdly literal take on what he said?
 
Yesssss........so if legal things can be fought over, then where's the logic in assuming that legalizing something is going to stop wars being fought over it?
I can't grow oil in my backyard. Sure, some will fight, idiots always exist, but when the price plummets and corporations start producing, the big organized gangs won't be nearly involved, if at all.
 
Dawgphood001 said:
Most importantly, that when cocaine was legal, there were no wars fought over it.

There weren't any wars fought over cocaine for the vast majority of its history as an illegal narcotic. Obviously the key variable here is not whether it's legal or illegal.
 
Am I supposed to infer an entire argument from a single word because you can't be bothered to type in complete sentences?
 
Fail.

You comparison is completely invalid. You do realize that you can't just grow a new crop of oil every few months, right? So not only is it the single most important commodity (after water and food) on earth, but it is also finite and concentrated in a few areas. Sounds like a recipe for war.
Doesn't matter. The limitation on the supply has nothing to do with it.

In fact, thank you for giving me a second weapon to beat you over the head with: food. You can grow yourself a crop of new food every few months, and guess what--wars are fought over food all the time. Food and oil are both legal, yet wars are fought over them all the time. Drugs will be no different; people want lots of them, and they're more profitable than either oil or food (and will remain so even if legalized), and so the answer remains no. Legalizing will not reduce drug-related violence.

Now, if you start selling them in pharmacies instead of street corners, that takes the gangbangers out of the equation, which certainly helps reduce violence.
Of course. It will reduce violence by gangbangers. It will not reduce violence by other people. Such as governments. Which are much better-armed than gangbangers......

Today's oil wars are not being fought by oil smugglers. They're being fought by governments. Which is worse right now? Wars being fought over cocaine, or wars being fought over oil? Obviously the second one. So what's your end goal here, bud? To reduce violence? To reduce the number of times governments steamroll entire nations to keep the oil/cocaine profits coming in? If you're looking to reduce the amount of violence in the world, legalizing things is not the way to do it. All the legal things wars are fought over (such as food and oil) serve as counterexamples.

Now i know you love to argue semantics, so let me state for the record: Dawgphood never implied that legalizing something removes all violence from it.
Yes he did. He said it right here:

The "why" factor is fairly obvious at this point, and more people are coming to realize the harms of prohibition everyday. So if you're saying that I can't draw that conclusion, but the DEA can draw other conclusions, I believe your bias is clearly showing itself.
Dawgphood said it very plainly: he thinks the illegal status of drugs is responsible for the violence currently happening in Mexico. If I got that wrong, HE is welcome to correct me; YOU are not.
 
Oil being illegal and wars over food are the two most bewildering things I've read today.
 
Am I supposed to infer an entire argument from a single word because you can't be bothered to type in complete sentences?

No you're just supposed to engage your brain. Even your examples show a severe lack of thought. For example Cocaine over the vast course of it's history as a narcotic was not illegal, it was even an ingredient in Coca-Cola at one stage. It was only made illegal in 1914, since then a lot of people have died over it, and I'll be pretty confident I'm right in stating that the deaths began soon after the prohibition over it.

But then again you do prefer false sweeping statements over evidence, otherwise you wouldn't be for prohibition but against it.
 
Top Bottom