USA Southern Border Patrol and Great News from Uruguay

[Keith]

Well, that depends. What a palaver the Southern Border seems to be?

I mean a farmer caught up in a border zone near San Diego says:

Democrats want votes

Republicans want cheap labour

Americans want cheap tomatoes.

So they all spend days and nights stopping illegals (and drugs) crossing the border and some poor sod through an accident of birth refuses to be moved on but still believes in the war on drugs. He is the victim here.

In the meantime, in Uruguay, the Govt today voted to legalise Cannabis in the hope that it will stop the criminal gangs. By the way, 2/3rds of the population are against such a move. Western style democracy strikes again!

I do not know what is more laughable - legalising cannabis or the notion that a Govt in South America makes decisions by voting.

So, we have huge resources ( $$$$ largely ineffective) and systems devoted to the control (?) of illegal drugs and immigrants and a foreign state on their doorstep legalising the very drug that forms the major illegal import together with the mules and armies of illegals day in day out.

This is not a homogenous scenario.

What comes next? I wish I knew. I have some suggestions however (which thankfully, you'll be pleased to know do not involve mass murder) but I would be grateful to hear American responses, as it is a subject which affects us all worldwide.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

IMHO all drugs should be legalised just as alcohol is, that would remove the profit and the criminal element. And it would allow Darwins law to take effect.

 

[Jim Craik]

I'm with you on that one Pete!

 

[Scott Calabro]

Funny thing is, I'm all for expensive tomatoes!

 

[Danimal W]

Funny thing is, I'm all for expensive tomatoes!

I grow my own tomatoes. ;-)

We need to secure our borders for sure.

 

[Mark]

Why did any 'recreational' drug first become illegal?

I'm with Pete on this.

 

[Keith]

Mark, why? Ignorant panic.

Jim. If that scenario was enacted you would have to have an armed community because, as Pete says, the Darwin theory would take over and who knows where that would end?

The CIA largely developed the core of today's recreational drugs for mind control experiments. Most famous of which was Lysergic Acid and of course our favourite Methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine or MDMA. I say developed because like most recreational drugs, the precursors are found in nature.

MDMA, for example, was largely legal everywhere as recently as the mid 20th century and it is interesting that Govts (including the UK) rushed to put it on the top shelf, thus associating it's cause and effect with cocaine and heroin.

Nothing can be further from the truth. MDMA is largely harmless and certainly non adicitve in mild usage but needs a certain amount of care when dealing with immediate side effects. Most deaths (less than 100 worldwide) "from" MDMA have been as a result of contaminated drugs, ignorance of cause and effect and water poisoning.

After 50 years of dealing first hand with the effects of alcohol and drugs on young people teaching harm reduction techniques to Local Government and consulting with National Government on best practice dealing with drugs in public places (and the damned Blair Government at that!), I can tell you that I personally welcomed MDMA with open arms.

Like other mind altering drugs, there is a suggestion that MDMA when used in large quantities can lead to irreversible psychotic behaviour but I think the dosages would have to be extreme.

To put things in perspective, aspirin will rupture your stomach lining if taken in quantity, so there's risk with everything you put in your mouth. (Don't go there)

I am using MDMA to demonstrate that had Govts left it alone, or restricted it's availability whilst controlling the quality somehow, it would NOT have achieved the global cult status it has, thus paving the way for criminal gangs to line their pockets with goods of dubious quality and high health risks.

This is not legalising drugs, it is acknowledging their presence whilst keeping a watchful eye. The British Govt, by it's actions of classifying MDMA as Class A, have effectively raised the drug's credibility to epic proportions, created a massive market, and paved the way for criminal,activity.

But, once it is classed thus, like all drugs, legalising this and other Class A drugs will not make any difference to criminal involvement.

Directly or indirectly as a result of global Govts actions in criminalising even the most harmless of recreational drugs, they themselves have helped to expose the fact that the world's population has an immense appetite for these things, and that is the worry.

If drugs like cannabis are declassified, big deal (pun intended) the dealers will move into something less intensive. Growing cannabis is a pain but making while powder in a basement isn't.

If they go ahead and declassify cocaine and heroin, there is now so much money invested in drug activity by criminal elements (including it has to be said, Sovereign Governments) that it's never ever ever going to end. They'll just come up with something new to bend your mind with a fancy name.

You know it.

Legalising cannabis is a brave move and good luck to them. Personally, I cannot see it will make a jot of difference. After all, smoking is bad for your health generally, yes?

The Future lies in education. (and that's another worry. Out of 10 teachers of young people I personally know, half of them (male) smoke cannabis and dabble in cocaine)

Finally one question from me.

Why take the damn stuff to start with?

Lets be honest, if there was no alcohol, mind bending drugs or Sky TV the world would be a safer nicer place anyway?

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Keith, the great lesson from history was the prohibition years in the US. Alcohol was illegal and a huge criminal industry grew that supplied illegal alcohol. Once prohibition ended the profit left alcohol and so did the crims.
My theory is if all drugs were legalised the criminal element would leave or turn to more profitable pursuits. Sure we would still have addicts as we have alcoholics, but without the crims pushing drug use I think we would have a much smaller problem.

 

[Keith]

Totally agree with the theory Pete and the reasoning behind it. As far as drugs goes, the horse has bolted, a massive market has been established and no government in their right mind will legalise heroin, methamphetamine or all the other nasty chemicals that abound these days.

It would take a huge bureaucracy (cost) just to administer such a move and I do not believe the general public would stand for the costs involved especially as significant proportion of them are consumers.

The only way legalisation would work is if the government became the sole suppliers and controlled the costs as the intend in Uruguay.

Can you tell me you could see that working? Would you trust Juliar to oversee such a programme?

I do not also believe the hugely rich criminal organisations would take it lying down either. Some of the cartels have a bigger better armed militia than many countries official military units.

Your alcohol Prohibition analogy is sound on the surface, but prohibition made a lot of people rich, not just the mobs. In an anomoly that still exists today, many counties in the South of the USA chose not to repeal Prohibition and are still legally dry to this day. For isntance, it is impossible to buy an alcoholic drink in the town of Lynchburg Tennessee. A quick glance at a Jack Daniels bottle will give you a clue as to why that is a bizarre fact.

Since the 21st Amendment, it become a Local issue not a Federal Power to permit the sale of alcohol with the Police having an important input into that procedure. So, guess who tends to own the liquor store just over the County Line in the next (wet) county? Well, it could have something to do with the er, local Sheriff's family for sure..

It is not illegal to consume in a dry county but it is illegal to sell. Even in a "Wet" County, all commercial business in a lot of States have to purchase their liquor from the State themselves although citizens can buy from liquor stores.

This is the South mind, and elsewhere in the USA tends to be more "normal"

The drugs market is somewhat different, in that it is already in illegal hands and has no history of ever being legal, so the legalisation of same is a monster that I do not believe is a viable option.

The ANTI DRUGS market is also a huge one. I would not want to contemplate the number of people working in that industry, and curiously, I believe that their interest would also be to maintain the status quo.

 

[Richard]

I'm with Pete on this one, at least where canabis is concerned. Lots of good uses for it and doesn't make the Pharmaceutical co. rich. Richard

 

[Keith]

Yes cannabis - who gives a crap. To be honest if people want to go around telling me that they are quote: "casual weekend users" and they can't add up on a Wednesday, then they deserve all they get.

As a medium sized employer in the entertainment business I have come into touch with all kinds of drug use in both customers and employees.

The first paragraph was a constant nag. Nice people, couldn't count the cash or balance the books. No good to me.

If they do legalise it, and I personally don't care if they do or don't as it's a mere blot on the landscape compared with Colombian Marching Powder, it's going to take a massive leap of faith and a significant reduction in Health & Safety requirements to employ anyone operating machinery at any time.

You'll say it's just like alcohol. It isn't. They already random test in the USA do they not? Not because they care of they do it or not, they just care if someone gets killed by someone off their face on a bit of bud, because he was 'just a casual weekend user' that couldn't get his head together on a Wednesday.

I've been there.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

I believe all employers should be able to randomly test for drugs and alcohol. I also think that able bodied people on welfare should also be tested for drugs and if they are users their cheque should be withheld.

 

[Keith]

Crikey Pete! You've hit it mate! Not to stereotype persons (it's not allowed anymore by the touchy feely Brussels Huggers) but....

That should dramatically reduce a) The drugs problem OR b) the unemployment problem overnight. Obviously, it can't achieve both (unfortunately) :laugh: