Comments on: Our Addiction Fuels Mexican Drug Wars

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:07:54 +0000

“Why do you feel like you have attack me for saying something like that?”

Because he can’t win arguments if he restricts himself to the truth.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:44:49 +0000

Why do you feel like you have attack me for saying something like that?

Farris often attacks people for things they haven’t said.

By: pwapvt

pwapvt — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:13:18 +0000

jay, how about the assault weapons ban? Or is that too much to ask? I know some people are really tied to the right to bear arms, and don’t seem too worked up about any of the other rights that get violated on a regular basis.

SaveF, I never said they would obey the law, but if we stop making them available it might just, maybe, make them harder to get.

Why do you feel like you have attack me for saying something like that?

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:47:32 +0000

How cute. Pwapvt thinks that Mexican Drug Cartels would obey any newly-enacted gun legislation.

By: tom

tom — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:46:43 +0000

My understanding of “decriminalization” is that is lightens or eliminates penalties for the possession of small amounts. So users are basically in the clear, but dealers who have to deal with larger amounts are still prosecuted. Is that correct?

Because it seems to me that’s the reason we have the current situation. Pot has more or less been decriminalized in California. Users can buy without fear, which makes the illegal trade more profitable, and hence bloodier. Basically, decriminalization outsources the violence of the business, but keeps American users safe. That’s great for us, but sucks for Mexico. Decriminalization isn’t the worst option, but it’s not the best either.

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:29:04 +0000

OK, pwapvt. Give us a few examples of “common sense” gun control laws. New ones. Cite a few examples of areas where we need new laws.

Strowbridge: I’ve repeatedly backed looser immigration quotas, as long as they are coupled with serious enforcement against those who break immigration laws. The last thing we need is another “Immigration Reform” like in 1964 or 1985.

Hmm… Ted Kennedy was a key backer of both measures. It might be a good idea to keep him away from any more immigration bills…

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:03:02 +0000

J.G.Thayer: “That’s a good first step. A good second step would be to start enforcing our border security as if we actually meant it.”

You are never going to do that. Border trade is too important. Although you should check ports better.

(On a side note, increasing legal immigration limits would also improve the illegal immigration situation.)

By: pwapvt

pwapvt — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:49:04 +0000

Heaven forbid we enact some sane gun control laws to keep American guns out of the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

By: Jay Tea

Jay Tea — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:24:11 +0000

That’s a good first step. A good second step would be to start enforcing our border security as if we actually meant it.

One would think that with the current Secretary of Homeland Security being a former Arizona governor, and Phoenix being the #2 city in the world for kidnapping (largely thanks to Mexican drug gangs), there’d be more of a push for these steps.

By: C.S.Strowbridge

C.S.Strowbridge — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:17:40 +0000

I could see pot being decriminalized relatively soon. All it would take is one state to legalize and tax it for it to spread nationwide.