1. Uncle Patso says:

    Recreational drug use in the U.S. is not a victimless crime.


    “According to government figures, there were 47,515 drug-related killings in Mexico between late 2006 and late 2011, though many experts put the death toll much higher. Almost every aspect of Mexican life is affected by organized crime and its endless battle to control the distribution of illicit drugs, most of which are destined for the United States and Canada. In just one month, photographer Louie Palu documented more than 110 murders in Mexico. There is no way of knowing how many of those deaths involved people who were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. As long as its justice system allows criminals to operate with impunity, Mexico will continue to be brutalized by the drug trade.”

    • orchidcup says:

      Alcohol is legal for adults, yet thousands are killed each year because of drunk driving, bar fights, etc.

      If we try to regulate everything that is known to kill people directly or indirectly, nobody would be allowed to do anything.

    • Tim says:

      Outlaw dandelions and you’ll have men trading and transporting them by the ton, scamming each other, killing each other, and kicking in your door to make sure you aren’t skimping on the Roundup.

      That’s not victimless either.

      What would those border wars be for then?? Why would anyone want to buy some crappy, seedy, squished, adulterated, blood-soaked bunk when they could either try their hand with home-grown or go clean and connoisseur from local vendors and growers who care.

      • Ken says:

        Even heroin costs only a few dollars per ounce to make. Why spend tons of money from an unreliable source that cuts the quality to gain even more profit, when a small lab can pump out the pure, clean stuff for next to nothing?

    • Captain Obvious says:

      I think you’re confusing illegal and legal recreational drug use. Read up on the history of crime associated with alcohol during prohibition.

      The problem is addiction. Talk to someone who has lived with it in their family – trust me you won’t have to go very far. Those are the real victims. Drugs, alcohol, smoking, gambling, etc. It’s all the same.

      5 million people in the US will die each year from tobacco use. Make it illegal and all you do is compound those numbers with senseless violence. Just like prohibition.

    • Ken says:

      If someone ingests a drug, who is the identifiable victim? If there is a victim, then the person who committed the alleged crime should be able to face his or her accuser.

      It is the government that is complicit in propping up drug lords who then perpetrate violence to keep their business going. If anyone should be put on trial, it’s those who are involved in the War on Drugs and perhaps even those who vote for them.

    • FSM says:

      I think all these drug-related murders in Mexico would not have happened if the stuff was not illegal to begin with.

      • pedro says:

        I think robberies would stop if people stops buying houses, cars, properties & anything else.

        • Ugh says:

          Wow pedro, that remark belongs in the ‘What’s the dumbest thing you’ve ever seen anyone say on the web’ post!

          • pedro says:

            So did the one I replied to. Here’s another dumb one: Women wouldn’t be raped if they didn’t show so much skin.

  2. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Of course there are victims of drug use…. legal or illegal, casual or addicted.

    The question of the OP is based on that fact.

    Does anyone here think there are no victims of drug enforcement policy? THAT is the issue. Compare the harms created by both options. When your opinion is based on just one side of the equation you miss the point entirely.

    Darwin weeps.

  3. JimD says:

    “Follow the Money” !!! Who PROFITS FROM THE “WAR ON DRUGS” ??? All the PROFITEERS AND BUREAUCRATS OF “Incarceration Nation” !!! Legalize and Tax Drugs !!!

  4. MikeN says:

    No, that is the extent of Uncle Dave. He once posted a defense of people who vandalize houses because they couldn’t possibly afford them under George Bush.

    Uncle Dave says:
    What the hell are you talking about?

    My bad, it wasn’t just that they couldn’t afford them, but that Bush and Co were profiting from the War in Iraq. Sorry for the confusion. Indeed that post shows why the war on drugs is useful.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      With the same accuracy…. I’ll say Uncle Dave was/is correct on both counts. Just untwist your bobbleheaded understanding of what was said, and what is obvious should be apparent even to yourself.


      Kennedys Dynasty was based on Prohibition alcohol.
      Bush Dynasty was based on Middle East Oil.

      Do either families profit today from this criminal activity? Other than carry forward interest and appreciation of capital assets…. probably not. Do the Bushies have overentwined family relations with the Oil Shieks sufficient for disqualify the whole family from holding high public office??

      I think so.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Bush and Co. If “Co” includes Cheney. Yes, Halliburton Exec could be prosecuted for war profiteering.

        I’m still waiting for who funded and profits from all the civilian contractors that are paid 10x market for services that aren’t even provided. How many of our over vaunted RICH do you think that would include. I don’t “know” but I would stfuf (forever) if those various orgs are composed and financed “only” by retired grunts and jarheads.

        Call me cynical.

      • pedro says:

        So great there are no rich liberuls, right?

        Head that criminal list with you

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          Of course there are RICH Liberals who are CRIMINALS.

          Pedro, what is it about RICH = CRIMINAL do you not understand?

          You run “everything” thru your blinder BS machine adding words and ideas that are expressly rejected and then form totally defective so called opinions based on that false self deception.

          When pointed out, you won’t look honestly at yourself and allow reality to guide what intellect you have.

          Pedro–who has EVER said drugs don’t do any harm? …… and thereby you piddle your worth away.

          Stupid. You do seem to enjoy it yourself though…. and thats a good thing.

          • pedro says:

            “…what is it about RICH = CRIMINAL do you not understand?”

            Oh, I understand what you wrote. That’s why I not only say you’re wrong but that you’re so wrong that you cannot see you fit into your own definition of criminal.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            If you understand what I wrote, why would you ask your question that is totally premised on a fabrication of your own imagination and totally unrelated to anything I have ever posted?

            How does that happen Pedro?

            I have a record of answering any and all direct questions. You avoid them. Who has ever said drugs don’t cause any harm Pedro?

            Answer: NO ONE has ever said that. Now you might respond that you understand that just as well as you understand what I posted.

            ….. and I would agree with you.

            Ha, ha.

          • pedro says:

            “If you understand what I wrote, why would you ask your question that is totally premised on a fabrication of your own imagination and totally unrelated to anything I have ever posted?”

            IOW, not only you do not understand what others write, you don’t even know what you write and repeat ad nauseam as mantra

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            No Pedro, thats not what is clearly said at all. Once again, your attempt to restate the issue in your own delusional terms is a total fail.

            ….. and again, you are tiresome.

          • pedro says:

            “….. and again, you are tiresome.”

            And unaware of how bothersome you are.

            But that’s part of liberul delusion.

      • MikeN says:

        Again your reading comprehension fails you. Let’s assume that you are correct. Then it is OK for people to come paint graffiti on your house as a result?

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          You and Pedro should get together. Long serious exchanges on the topics of the day.

          ………….gee……………… how come you and Pedro DON’T talk to each other here?

          Heh, heh. Takes one to know one, and when you do, you avoid yourself?

          Thats heavy dude. Your OWN value system says talking to anyone like you is a waste of time.

          The rest of us need to pay like attention. Thats one thing about liberals—-always reaching down to give a hand to those in need. Wing nuts slappying it away happy with their own delusions.

          Silly Hoomans.

          Just got a book for Christmas, the squib looks good: “In his book, Zombie Politics and Culture in the Age of Casino Capitalism, author and scholar Henry Giroux connects the dots to prove his theory that our current system is informed by a “machinery of social and civil death” that chills “any vestige of a robust democracy.”

          Interesting idea==there are social ills/challenges that require a SOCIAL response/program. The neo/religio/libertarin/NON Christian right by turning society over to the RICH have created a mind set that makes INDIVIDUALS responsible for these social programs. Sounds like the author has the same idea and has called in Zombie Politics. A bit too au current for me, but … you gotta get published.

          Embrace the Horror. Wallmart store with their one hour guarantee for 60″ Vizio tv was closed. Guess I’ll wait until next year and call ahead?

          • Tim says:

            “”You and Pedro should get together.

            Ohh, but they kind of do–>

            “”Can you at least tell the difference between a conclusion and a question. You were the one who made an argument that is unconvincing.

            At least, they’ll circle the wagons together.

            As I believe that parts of the brain were physically damaged at birth pre 1950 vs. the more unreliable soft\slow chemical castration of the pineal (floride) and psycological abuse techniques though government ‘education’ that is not as effective on those who may stumble upon the prophylatic herbs, prohibition banter is going to be driven by their current stock portfolios.

            I’ve seen it too much. There is nothing but pain for them to hear the truth against what they were fed; That pain is significant and, for most of them, insurmountable. They tend to just watch lots of sports and yell at the tv when not dressing up and going to church to prove that they love Jesus enough.

            My profiler-sense increasing confidence index for these two over this year has me guessing they are both heavy in Monsanto, pharmaceuticals, and prison ‘services’. It’s God’s blessings that they, the riteous, are well-off.

            There is a word for that — neocons.

            Highly intelligent, engaging pwning discourse, clueless.

            “I weep for the species.”

          • pedro says:


          • Tim says:

            Yea. As a matter of fact, there is a problem. I probably should have waited for GRIDX II to conclude before attempting to flash the internet.

          • pedro says:


          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Ha, ha. “most war game scenarios” are wrong as they are premised on a set of instructions and “rules” that are followed.

            But real terrorists don’t play that game.

            They go all Kobayashi Maru and spoil everything for the right wing rule followers.

            I have had a nice time considering Pedro, Mickey, and right wing nuts. Am I just being egotistical thinking I am right and they are wrong and we both are doing the same thing? Do I actually really for shure love being shown I’m wrong???

            I think I am more right than wrong. When you grow up seeking the truth and learning from when you ARE wrong, you do become more accurate/truthful/honest. BUT as study after study shows, you psychology blanks out that which disagrees with you and you just cling to your dogma, how could the outcome be any different????

            Right Wing Nuts. Hardly ever correct, but totally convinced.

            Idiots. They have the smarts to be otherwise, but the switch is powered by psychology.

            Not Darwin===but the other great Jewish Thinker of our age: the one weeping is Freud.

          • Tim says:

            It’s not right wing v left wing — Yucky, licked-on boot-in-face is equally oxytocin-pumping, self esteem boosting, trust building, social adjusting, learning opportunities regardless of which team it belongs to; It’s The State against you.


  5. HGV cover says:

    An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a co-worker who was
    conducting a little homework on this. And he actually ordered
    me lunch due to the fact that I stumbled upon
    it for him… lol. So let me reword this…. Thank YOU for the meal!!
    But yeah, thanks for spending the time to discuss this topic here on your web site.

  6. Hector says:

    You made some decent points there. I looked on the internet to find out more about the issue and found most individuals
    will go along with your views on this website.

  7. Joel says:

    It’s an amazing piece of writing designed for all the online users;
    they will take benefit from it I am sure.

  8. Ƭhe propег daʏ for taking the urine test is aрproximatеly 2 weeks after having an unprotected sexual contact.

    You will nοt have to go through the hasslеs of ɡetting
    a doctor’s appoіntment, getting your testѕ done
    anԁ so on. People also say that afteг consumption of thesе drοps, they even
    witnessed considerable difference in the fatty regіon befߋre
    and after consumption.

  9. I rarely leave a response, however i did a few searching and wound up
    here Why The War on Drugs Is Worse Than Legalization Dvorak News Blog.

    And I actually do have 2 questions for you if you usually do not mind.
    Is it only me or does it look like a few of the remarks come across like they are coming from brain dead folks?

    :-P And, if you are writing at additional places, I’d like
    to keep up with anything new you have to post. Could you make a list of every one of your community pages like your
    Facebook page, twitter feed, or linkedin profile?