|
Zonie63 -> RE: Leader of Zetas drug cartel is captured (7/17/2013 10:18:34 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
I agree that what's been happening in Mexico is horrible and I realize your real concern is stopping the violence. But what's happening there, in my opinion, has gone well beyond the notion that it's all because some Americans want what the cartels are offering. It's become a power struggle between the government and a bunch of violent killers addicted to money and power. That isn't solely our responsibility no matter what the impetus for it was. We have not been their only customers.
But think about what you're saying as well. From what it sounds like, you're arguing against the people that want to save addicts hellbent on killing themselves yet you expect us to do the same by accepting and treating addicts who are often just as hellbent on staying high. Is it really any different? Addiction is addiction and that is where the real problem lies.
Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
My view is that there is violence associated with it precisely because it's illegal. Since drug dealers can't go to the cops, they operate in an underground state of quasi-anarchy. That's why there is violence, and that's why there's a lot of money to be made. We don't see alcohol company executives shooting each other in the streets, not like it was during Prohibition. There's a reason for that, even though alcoholism is still the same disease with the same effects - with or without Prohibition.
It's the same with addiction to other drugs. I agree that addiction is addiction, and it is a problem. But it's not the cause of the violence. The illegality causes the violence. If not for that, then addicts would be just like alcoholics are now. I'll concede that that's not an ideal situation, but it may still be the lesser of two evils. The addicts will be around either way, creating their own private hells, but at least the streets might be safer (both in the U.S. and Mexico). That's my main point here.
quote:
quote:
IMO, this is probably the worst logical argument for the legalization of drugs.
How so? I think it's a perfectly valid and practical argument. It's not the only argument I would make, but I can't see anything wrong with it. Perhaps you can enlighten as to what the problem is with it.
Because it's the same kind of argument a drug dealer makes to justify his business, "The money was just too good". The premise ignores all the possible negative effects of drug use for the sake of profit. And while I'll admit that it may only be a moral or ethical argument on my part, I've already witnessed enough damage from drug abuse and capitalist zealotry to question the legitimacy of such a proposal. That's why I started that comment with IMO (In My Opinion).
I was just trying to point out another possible societal benefit of legalization. I realize that you see it as a detriment based on what you've witnessed, so I'll address this point when I address your last point.
quote:
The excessive violence in Mexico is only proof that there are a bunch of violent killers in Mexico. I doubt it would matter much if their money came from people buying drugs or Cuban cigars.
At this point, the killings have probably gone beyond the original reasons for the conflict.
quote:
(Added later as an edit)
BTW...what do you think the probability is that even one of those violent killers is acting so because he's using the drugs he obviously has easy access to?
It's possible, but I wouldn't make any assumptions in that regard.
quote:
quote:
To think that continuing with drug prohibition will lead to anything good for society is, in my opinion, far more naive than what you're saying here. The whole idea has been terribly naive from the very start, and innocent people are being killed because of this naivete.
I respect your opinion, Zonie, but if you think I'm really being that naive then why don't you go find out what it's like to be addicted to something like cocaine, meth, or heroin, make the struggle back to sobriety, then come tell us what you think about it. And if you've already gone through that kind of situation then I applaud your tenacity and strength of will. But if you think it's better to legalize addictive drugs and treat the addicts then would you support continuing prohibition of addictive drugs while pushing the development of medications that block those drugs from affecting the brain in the way they do?
I've been around the block a few times in my life, so I'm not unaware of what you're speaking of. I've seen addiction and alcoholism first-hand. I'll confess that I was a recreational user back in the 80s; my older brother was into it quite a bit more. I had a girlfriend back then who fell in with some heavy-duty smugglers and disappeared from my life.
On the other hand, I've known people who have used recreationally without the kinds of problems which are often associated with it. Not everyone gets totally fucked up on the stuff. Some people can use responsibly, at home in their off hours, and not cause any problems for anyone else. I just don't believe that legalization would bring about the great disaster that many seem to think it will. In any case, we haven't done it yet, so we don't really know what the results will be. I honestly don't see how it could make things worse than they already are.
I'm not sure I quite understand your last question. I'm not familiar with the medications that block drugs from affecting the brain, but it would seem that if there are such medications, then prohibition would be a moot point. As far as treatment goes, we'd have to ask whether it's more expensive to treat someone or send them to prison. Because either way, the taxpayers are going to end up paying for it. In the final analysis, treatment is more humane than prison.
|
|
|
|
