We're fighting a war in Iraq. We're fighting a war in Afghanistan. We're on the verge of fighting wars in Pakistan and Iran (maybe an overstatement... just slightly). So once we've conquered and established democratic nations with governments favorable to the western world in all of the middle eastern countries, what could possibly be next on the foreign affairs agenda? Taking out Russia before it turns into the communist Soviet Union again? Obliterate China and turn the world into a nuclear waste dump? No. Next on the United States world domination agenda: take over Mexico.
Ok, maybe that was pushing it a bit. However, large drug cartels have shown increasing amounts of violence in Mexico over the past few months, getting up to 6 deaths found per day by authorities and it has been speculated that a civil war or a government coup could be in the the midst of Mexico's future. With the violence being so close to the American border, the U.S. government has thus offered assistance to the Mexican government and is advising Mexico in strategizing to deal with the warring drug cartels. President Obama and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Michael Mullen met on Saturday to discuss the involvement of the U.S. military in the ordeal. With our foreign affairs so firmly etched in the Middle East, how much focus should we be placing on the threat to our south. While the drug cartels are not a large threat yet, the potential is there and an unfriendly aggressive government on our border is a far larger threat to our national security than countries half a world a way.
Potential threats ought to be dealt with before they develop into a national security crisis, but the situation brings back memories of lessons in US History last year, i.e. the Bay of Pigs Invasion and other CIA failures. Is the United States handling the situation adequately? Furthermore, how much will this bolster our international budget, which is large enough as it is?
Trump’s NY Criminal Trial, Day 8 and Open Thread
2 hours ago
13 comments:
Well if we legalized drugs all these drug cartels would be outcompeted by legitimate businesses.
Also, do you support the Iraq war? Because it sounds like it when you say potential threats should be dealt with before they become a national security crisis
I think it's nice that the President wants to protect the US from drugs, and it's a smart idea to nip the problem in the bud, but if he sends troops to Mexico as well, we'll be stretching ourselves pretty thin. We'll be in the all over the Middle East and Southern America, so I hope he comes up with a way that won't have most of our troops everywhere but here. There was a time in history where we didn't want to send troops anywhere and didn't want to have anything to do with anyone else's problems, and now we're everywhere you can think of.
~Kimiya Bahmanyar
To ballin4life, you may have been misled by a few sarcastic comments here and there, which would be my fault. But I did not state that we should legalize drugs or even cartels for that matter. These events are occurring in Mexico and the possibility of a government coup with a drug cartel coming into power is merely that. A possibility. It's unlikely to happen but a possibility nonetheless.
As for your question in regards to the Iraq war, that situation was highly complicated. Yes, if Iraq had truly developed nuclear weapons and was poised to strike against the United States or our allies, the question wouldn't be how could you support the Iraq war, but how could you NOT support the Iraq war. Alas, after years of fighting the war, it was revealed to the public, though many had the suspicions when it was first initiated, that Iraq did not have nuclear technology and that the country was not a national security threat. Should Iraq had been a threat to national security, I would have supported that war. But they were not and the Iraq war was merely concocted through government deception and a greed for oil.
Well first, I am saying we should legalize drugs, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
North Korea has nukes right? Would you support invading them right now?
Don't you think an invasion would make other countries more likely to nuke us? Also countries don't really want to attack us since if any country actually nuked us there would be massive retaliation and we have way more WMDs than anyone else.
Is invasion the only method of preventing a security crisis? No. The Iraq situation was different as we were on essentially rampaging through Middle Eastern countries as vengeance for the 9/11 attack. Every country in the Middle East that was seen as a threat to be supporting the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attack. It's discrimination based on the location of those countries, but we knew that terrorists from the Middle East (and the group may not have only been situated in one country) had attacked us and now Iraq was 'developing or already had nuclear weapons at their disposal.' Does that not seem to be an imminent threat to you?
The line has to be drawn based off of logical decisions based on cause and effect. Is North Korea a significant threat at this moment? Possibly. But the differences between North Korea and Iraq are those that would use those weapons against us. From North Korea, it would be the government attacking us, giving us a base for retaliation in their citizens (this sounds really bad I know, but it's what's keeping us from nuclear wars). From Iraq's standpoint, we would fear terrorist groups taking hold of those nuclear weapons and using them against us. Then where do we retaliate? We wouldn't have any location to retaliate. Should we just bomb every country in hopes of getting them? North Korea is still salvageable through diplomacy, whereas Iraq would have been better dealt with through militaristic actions, given that we are speaking of the situation that the government actually led us to believe. In essence, no real government will attack the United States with nuclear weapons, but terrorist groups with no connection to any country are the real threats.
Now, in the Mexico ordeal, the consequences of interfering there right now? Not all that significant. I don't believe there's a black and white way to decide when to intervene, i.e. X country has Y amount of nuclear weapons. We will invade when they have Y+3 amount of nuclear warheads. The threat and consequences need to be analyzed, but that's for the government to decide how to best deal with the situation. If we were to invade another country, I'm assuming you're talking about Mexico as this is what the post was about, it wouldn't lead to nuclear retaliations from other countries. We've done it before. We've interfered with the politics of countries within our hemisphere multiple times during the Cold War. The United States is the lone remaining superpower, and as the lone remaining superpower it is within our natural rights to meddle in every single other government in the world to our liking (just kidding, but that does seem to be the attitude our country acts with).
But we're drifting a bit off topic. Legalizing drugs in the United States, which is what I'm assuming you're talking about, would not at all affect the situation in Mexico. Legalizing drugs in itself is sending a very negative message to the public, but that's a whole other topic.
It's because of all these interventions that so many people hate the United States.
Anyway, why wouldn't the US legalizing drugs affect the Mexican drug cartels? Don't they make money by smuggling drugs into the US? If drugs were legal they wouldn't have a business.
1. Legalizing drugs in the United States would simply make it easier for drug cartels and give them LEGITIMATE businesses. Are we just going to create marijuana and heroine creating companies in the United States out of nowhere to compete with the drug cartels? They'll still be selling their products in the United States.
2. Do you REALLY want to legalize these drugs? There's so many things wrong with that both morally and logically. Hey, look. That guy walked into Longs. Oh, look, that guy walked out of Longs with... over-the-counter marijuana... If you can't see the problems with that there's nothing I can say to convince you. Some drugs are illegal for a reason.
Do you not see how keeping drugs illegal is morally wrong?
You are the one who hates personal freedom. What right do you have to tell people what they can do with their bodies? Do you support banning alcohol? (By the way, marijuana was a terrible choice for an example. At least pick something like heroin that's actually physically harmful.)
Also, drug cartels are violent because drugs are illegal. Nonviolent companies would spring up to supply drugs if they were legal, just like nonviolent companies currently supply tobacco alcohol etc.
I hate personal freedom? That's blowing a small line way out of proportion don't you think? Sure, I might not think we should get to go out, get high, and go on a rampage, but that's hardly hating personal freedom. With the way you're interpreting personal freedom laws, too many cases wouldn't have a decision in court. The text gives the guidelines, but logic connects those guidelines to specific cases . How about taking a weapon and threatening some random person out on the street? That's within our rights to carry arms. That's personal freedom. But is it logical to outlaw assault? Yes. I agree that we should focus on keeping the law to what the text states, but you need to accompany that with logic. Marijuana affects people mentally, heroin physically. They're both dangers to people and the government is try to do its job in protecting its citizens from harmful drugs. With that stated, there is a hazy line as to what should be banned an, and I haven't looked into how strong the effects of drugs are and what this line should be. And similar to how you can't just come out with a be-all-end-all policy for dealing with early national threats, there's no clear cut line for banned substances. Ultimately, researchers have found marijuana, heroin, and other drugs to be dangerous enough to warrant banning. You can debate how dangerous they should be to warrant banning, but if you don't think the government should be allowed to protect its citizens, you might as well disband the government.
Lastly, how often can a brand new company with little experience spring up to compete with the big bad franchises that have long been established? Drug cartels have already developed the product and have the experience in the field whereas any new 'nonviolent company' would be playing catch-up the entire time. I doubt there would be many that try the field anyways with the negative perception that surrounds drugs right now. Drug cartels will still get their business, and they'll continue to get their income to fund their war in Mexico.
Try to keep any response you have civilized. I don't mind responding to these, but when you start accusing me of 'hating personal freedom' without even giving your own name, you're crossing a line that I believe is pretty clear.
You support telling people what they can do with their own bodies.
Assault is illegal because it infringes on the rights of others. Doing drugs is a victimless crime. Killing someone while on drugs is not victimless. See the difference?
Why shouldn't the government ban alcohol, tobacco, or fried chicken?
All of these are unhealthy, but people make the choice to use them. As long as you aren't hurting anyone else, what's the problem?
Keeping drugs illegal does not protect the citizens. It just creates a black market for drugs with higher prices, more impurities (makes it easier to overdose) and more violence because they cannot call the police to resolve disputes.
As for the cartels, I'll try a historical example. After prohibition ended, was alcohol still supplied by organized crime families and the black market? No, legitimate companies sprang up because these companies can outcompete the black market. It might not happen overnight, but it would probably happen quickly. By being the first legitimate company you would make tons of money.
I support the government protecting its citizens, who may be too naive to recognize the dangers of these drugs.
Assault qualifies only as threatening others in a violent manner. I'm not going off the basis that drugs affect other people. The government's job is to protect its citizens, whether from outside forces or from the citizens themselves. That is why I believe it is reasonable for the government to research the effects of these drugs, and decide whether the potential harm to its citizens deserves banning. You can argue all you want for these indirect effects of keeping drugs illegal, but these drugs cause harm to people directly. That is a direct threat that needs to be addressed. For your question with fried chicken, etc., that's precisely what I described in my last post. That hazy line of what deserves banning and what doesn't. Though some of it may be difficult to decide, the difference between the ill effects of fried chicken and drugs like marijuana, or heroin if you prefer, are pretty clear in my opinion. There's always going to be a debate on what deserves banning, but there shouldn't be much of a debate on whether the government's allowed to protect its citizens.
No offense, but your arguments that keeping drugs illegal doesn't protect its citizens are weak and pretty far stretches. It may occur in a rare case, but I'd prefer the average citizen not having access to over-the-counter illegal drugs rather than stopping these rare situations. Simply keeping the drugs illegal greatly reduces the amount of people that use them. Consider, for example, people that smoke and people that use marijuana. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are far more cigarette smokers than marijuana users.
Finally, I'll admit I'm not very familiar with the alcohol prohibition period outside of the basic facts of the time. Can you prove that crime syndicates were the ones actually smuggling the alcohol? Can you prove that the legitimate companies that provided alcohol before the prohibition period weren't smuggling the alcohol? Can you prove that the crime syndicates didn't begin selling alcohol legitimately after the prohibition period passed?
These illegal drugs aren't as entrenched in our culture as alcohol is/was. There won't be hoards of citizens calling for the ban on drugs to be lifted just because they wish to use them again more freely. Whereas prohibition likely received opposition from the large amount of people that regularly drank alcohol as well as political activists, the main opposition against these drugs would be political activists who feel their personal freedom rights are being violated. The population of drug users just isn't as large. (unless I'm seriously underestimating the amount of people that use drugs. Hopefully, I'm not). My argument against holding back a bit of personal freedom, it's sometimes necessary when the government tries to protect its citizens.
You can argue all you want that we need every single bit of our personal freedom to make everyone that constantly reads over the bill of rights happy, but realistically, there will be some things that the government impedes upon to protect you. And the illegalization (is that even a word?) of drugs is one of those instances.
Well it's not the government's job to protect people from themselves. If someone, knowing all the consequences, wishes to do drugs anyway, it means that they have decided that the benefits outweigh the negatives. The vast majority of people know the negative effects of drugs.
Would you suddenly start doing heroin if it were legal? I'm guessing no and neither would I. It's not the illegality that stops most people from doing it, since drugs are still fairly easy to get.
You would prefer the average citizen has access to more dangerous black market drugs over higher quality, safer, legally bought ones? Anyone who really wants to do drugs can do them now.
Also, if you haven't noticed, the drug prohibition is a gigantic government expenditure that has failed to prevent people from using drugs anyway.
But in the end, why should the politicians decide on this "hazy line"? Each person should make that decision for himself.
On prohibition, have you heard of Al Capone? You can check on wikipedia, he's just the first alcohol smuggler that comes to mind. And now alcohol is provided by legitimate companies, rather than crime families.
The point is that prohibition just increases violence because the illegality pushes drugs into the black market where people cannot call the police if someone attacks or steals from them.
Besides the negative effects of drug prohibition (increased violence and massive amounts of money wasted), it sort of comes down to a simple question:
If I choose to do drugs, knowing the negative effects, why should you be able to stop me? I'm not hurting anyone but myself. People make dangerous choices all the time (like driving a car), but they make that choice because they want to.
I believe we've reached the crux of our different points of view. My perception of the problem is that the vast majority of the citizens do not understand the ill-effects of all these drugs to the point that they could understand and seriously consider the ramifications of later effects, whereas I'm assuming you would differ here. When faced with a decision as to whether to use a drug or not (I'm aware there may be other circumstances as well that would affect this scenario), if the only knowledge an average person had of the drug was that it is illegal, don't you think that would be a large foundation in convincing the person to choose not to use the drug? I believe the average citizen would take the illegality of the product into account and it would be a major factor in considering whether to use a drug or not. Illegality may or may not completely prevent people from using drugs (we can debate this forever but neither of us has any resources to prove it, unless you're secretly a Stanford researcher), but ultimately, my point is that the illegality of a product will be considered when a person thinks about drugs and the illegality does provide a negative perception that contributes largely in dissuading a person from using drugs.
In a more broad sense, it's a manner of making a statement. If the government repealed the laws against harmful drugs, the public would essentially infer that these drugs are not so harmful. If they continue to be illegal, the government is stating that they do not support these drugs and they should not be consumed.
One of the government's primary functions is to protect its people. There's no specification on whether it's merely from national security, from citizens between citizens, or from citizens on themselves. If a person chooses to commit suicide and informs you of their choice, would you stand by and allow him to do so or would you try to change his mind? The answers may vary, but the general perception is that it's better to try to change that person's mind. You have the right to make your own decisions, but that doesn't mean other people (in this case the government) can't help you try to choose a better decision.
And again, my perception is that the average citizen does not have much access to the drug black market. You will probably object to this, but there's not many ways to prove that either of us are right or wrong in this area, unless we plan to go through numerous experimental designs to figure this out. Ultimately, our arguments will differ based on our different perceptions of the average person does, thinks, and has access to.
Finally, I'll agree with you that from an economic standpoint, legalizing drugs would help the economy. But I'm against the message that the government would be sending.
I still don't believe that you can predict that these drug cartels can be made obsolete were drugs to be legalized. Your example with legitimate companies now and Al Capone was about 70 years down the road. Might have happened sooner, might not have, but I'm not really looking to research into the entire prohibition period right now. There's still too many factors and questions to be able to accurately predict that legalization would result in obsolete drug cartels and too many other methods that would more directly restrain the drug cartels. I'll give you that legalizing drugs could possibly halt the drug war activity and hopefully end it at that.
Laws are made to apply for the average person, but as we seem to have trouble deciding on an accurate definition for the average person, I'm beginning to wonder if the government comes across this problem often as well when creating laws.
I doubt I'll be checking this post anymore after tonight but if you really want to continue this, just find me sometime and we can hijack a different post sometime.
Post a Comment