Mexican billboard

[BLZFAN4LIFE]

No mas

 

Mexican President unveils message to America.

 

My link

 

 

 

My response:

 

 

NO MORE

 

WETBACKS!

 

I think it's a pretty fair deal.

Edited February 18, 2012 by BLZFAN4LIFE

[3rdnlng]

No mas

 

Mexican President unveils message to America.

 

 

My response:

 

 

NO MORE

 

WETBACKS!

 

I think it's a pretty fair deal.

 

It's certainly not the laid back gentle Mexican people killing anyone because we know guns kill people instead of people killing people. Seriously, it would probably be a good idea to restrict The Holder Arms Company from exporting any more weapons, if only to help out the insurance companies holding policies on Border Patrol agents..

[Magox]

When I looked at the title of this thread I thought to myself "This oughta be good"

 

It didn't disappoint

[Koko78]

It's certainly not the laid back gentle Mexican people killing anyone because we know guns kill people instead of people killing people. Seriously, it would probably be a good idea to restrict The Holder Arms Company from exporting any more weapons, if only to help out the insurance companies holding policies on Border Patrol agents..

 

Yes, but you forget that for every Border Patrol agent killed by one of the DOJ's weapons, one person must be hired to replace him. That's a bona fide decrease in unemployment!

 

The gun-running programs are actually jobs programs!

[UConn James]

Maybe they should put one at their southern border as well.

 

You know, because that's where CBS News (hardly a bastion of pro-gun sentiment, don't you know) has proved that 90 percent of the guns in Mexico enter through, during their coverage of the BATF's Operation Fast and Furious scandal. (Seriously, if Sheryl Atkisson doesn't win a boatload of Pulitzers for her work on this story, it will finally prove the extent of rot and agenda in the MSM.)

 

And it would be an even higher % if our own government stopped selling AK-47s directly to the cartel.

Edited February 18, 2012 by UConn James

[RkFast]

I know what we should do! Give Calderon a State Dinner and a microphone to publicly scold us...right from the White House lawn!!!!!!

 

That outta learn him!

 

GOD, I hate this Country sometimes.

[Magox]

Wow! Some of you guys are real dipshits! If it wasn't for our insatiable appetite and demand for drugs, there wouldn't be this violence issue. The idea that somehow cracking on supply is gonna solve the problem is absurd.

 

If you really want to crack down on the violence, then you legalize Weed. That way you cut off the illegal supply of weed flowing from Mexico, which weed by far is the #1 drug imported into the US from Mexico. You cut this off, then you cut off their funding, and a good portion of their reason of existence. But go ahead, and keep blaming the boogeymen.

[Booster4324]

Wow! Some of you guys are real dipshits! If it wasn't for our insatiable appetite and demand for drugs, there wouldn't be this violence issue. The idea that somehow cracking on supply is gonna solve the problem is absurd.

 

If you really want to crack down on the violence, then you legalize Weed. That way you cut off the illegal supply of weed flowing from Mexico, which weed by far is the #1 drug imported into the US from Mexico. You cut this off, then you cut off their funding, and a good portion of their reason of existence. But go ahead, and keep blaming the boogeymen.

 

That makes way too much sense, so of course no one will go for it...

[LeviF]

When I looked at the title of this thread I thought to myself "This oughta be good"

 

It didn't disappoint

Don't forget the original poster. That's how I knew it'd be fun.

[Booster4324]

Don't forget the original poster. That's how I knew it'd be fun.

 

I am ignoring the fact it came from someone with a history...

[whateverdude]

Wow! Some of you guys are real dipshits! If it wasn't for our insatiable appetite and demand for drugs, there wouldn't be this violence issue. The idea that somehow cracking on supply is gonna solve the problem is absurd.

 

If you really want to crack down on the violence, then you legalize Weed. That way you cut off the illegal supply of weed flowing from Mexico, which weed by far is the #1 drug imported into the US from Mexico. You cut this off, then you cut off their funding, and a good portion of their reason of existence. But go ahead, and keep blaming the boogeymen.

Hey hippie, you would also have to legalize cocaine, Heroin, MDMA and Methamphetamine.

[LeviF]

Hey hippie, you would also have to legalize cocaine, Heroin, MDMA and Methamphetamine.

Your point being?

[RkFast]

Wow! Some of you guys are real dipshits! If it wasn't for our insatiable appetite and demand for drugs, there wouldn't be this violence issue. The idea that somehow cracking on supply is gonna solve the problem is absurd.

 

If you really want to crack down on the violence, then you legalize Weed. That way you cut off the illegal supply of weed flowing from Mexico, which weed by far is the #1 drug imported into the US from Mexico. You cut this off, then you cut off their funding, and a good portion of their reason of existence. But go ahead, and keep blaming the boogeymen.

 

The notion of legalizing weed to do away with the black market IMO is a farcical argument. You mean to tell me you legalize it, fold it under the control of the ATF and FDA or whatever other govt beaurocracy needs control, you then see huge tax levies slapped on it and a price jump of about 500% and that is going to do away with the black market?

 

That's nuts.

 

Heck there is still a big black market for booze for this Country, dating back to Prohibition and liquor is 500 times harder to produce and move around than weed. And truckloads of cigarettes, another product much harder to produce than weed, is the same deal.

 

Im sorry, the idea that all these pot smokers and pot producers are gonna become good, little compliant taxpayers the second its complete decriminalized and govt. controlled is nuts, IMO.

Edited February 19, 2012 by RkFast

[yall]

Legalizing weed, and seeing its price jump 500% due to the tax levies put on it is going to do away with the black market.

 

Yeah.........RIGHT.

 

 

And in other news, there is no illegal tax free whiskey being made in the States, either.

 

Even with taxes it would probably still be cheaper. It grows everywhere and has a short growing cycle. If it cost Company XYZ 50.00 per pound to produce, they could sell it for 100 bucks a pound, the government could tack on a 300.00 per pound tax, and it would still be below today's current market value.

 

And let's not forget, if it were decriminalized, lots of people would grow their own for personal consumption.

 

So yeah, in all likelihood most black market activities relative to pot would be gone.

[Booster4324]

Even with taxes it would probably still be cheaper. It grows everywhere and has a short growing cycle. If it cost Company XYZ 50.00 per pound to produce, they could sell it for 100 bucks a pound, the government could tack on a 300.00 per pound tax, and it would still be below today's current market value.

 

And let's not forget, if it were decriminalized, lots of people would grow their own for personal consumption.

 

So yeah, in all likelihood most black market activities relative to pot would be gone.

 

That is completely correct (in the idea if not the actual numbers).

[ieatcrayonz]

Even with taxes it would probably still be cheaper. It grows everywhere and has a short growing cycle. If it cost Company XYZ 50.00 per pound to produce, they could sell it for 100 bucks a pound, the government could tack on a 300.00 per pound tax, and it would still be below today's current market value.

 

And let's not forget, if it were decriminalized, lots of people would grow their own for personal consumption.

 

So yeah, in all likelihood most black market activities relative to pot would be gone.

Awesome. And it would be so much easier to turn what would otherwise be productive citizens into catatonic losers.

 

It is ridiculous that people who engage in something that is wrong, like smoking pot, constantly look for the government's approval as if that will make their loser activity into some kind of "normal" thing. Government label or not, their brains will still be fried and productive citizens load will be all the heavier.

 

 

People who smoke pot should own it. They should not look for the government to tell them everything will be ok. If they feel guilty that there is a violent industry behind their joint and people are being exploited then own the guilt. Don't hope for some miracle from Washington to wipe away their guilt, just own it.

 

Nobody is perfect. We all make mistakes and sometimes do things that are wrong. Just grow up and own up to it instead of blaming everyone else all the time.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

The notion of legalizing weed to do away with the black market IMO is a farcical argument. You mean to tell me you legalize it, fold it under the control of the ATF and FDA or whatever other govt beaurocracy needs control, you then see huge tax levies slapped on it and a price jump of about 500% and that is going to do away with the black market?

 

That's nuts.

 

Heck there is still a big black market for booze for this Country, dating back to Prohibition and liquor is 500 times harder to produce and move around than weed. And truckloads of cigarettes, another product much harder to produce than weed, is the same deal.

 

Im sorry, the idea that all these pot smokers and pot producers are gonna become good, little compliant taxpayers the second its complete decriminalized and govt. controlled is nuts, IMO.

 

Though I think you are correct about the fact that if we legalize things like Pot it won't get rid of the black market it will stil put a lid on most of the violence. There is still a market for illegal booze but we don't here news about people being being killed in booze wars in Mexico.

[Magox]

The notion of legalizing weed to do away with the black market IMO is a farcical argument. You mean to tell me you legalize it, fold it under the control of the ATF and FDA or whatever other govt beaurocracy needs control, you then see huge tax levies slapped on it and a price jump of about 500% and that is going to do away with the black market?

 

That's nuts.

 

Heck there is still a big black market for booze for this Country, dating back to Prohibition and liquor is 500 times harder to produce and move around than weed. And truckloads of cigarettes, another product much harder to produce than weed, is the same deal.

 

Im sorry, the idea that all these pot smokers and pot producers are gonna become good, little compliant taxpayers the second its complete decriminalized and govt. controlled is nuts, IMO.

 

Listen, I know you have a hard time with understanding basic economics so i will cut you some slack. Here let me explain it to you in the simplest of terms. First off to your first point, which is a valid one, which is if you legalize weed it would see a 500% increase from what we are seeing today. Well that would be 100% without a doubt false and here is why. As it is right now, the cost of regular weed to produce to the market is already seeing well over a 2000% markup from producer to the end user, unless you are talking about local "regs". The reason for the markup is for a bevy of reasons. One is the risk, risk of criminal action is a huge driver of the cost. Transport, you think the **** is cheap to ship it across borders? How much do you think that could cost? What about profits? You have any idea how many middemen are involved? You have producer to distributor, to another distrubtor, to regional distrubutor, to local distributor, then it goes to retail sellers.

 

The markup is extremely high.

 

Now if it were to be legalized, there would be the cost to produce, taxes and then profits. Profit margins would shrink because we live in a capitalistic society, so competition would keep the margins in check, and then that leaves taxes. Taxes could be high, what is the tax level on alcohol? what about on cigarettes? Let's say you have a 500% tax, that still would leave the price of weed cheaper thanwhat you would see on the black market.

 

So there goes your argument

 

So if you want to effectively and rationally fight the war with the MExican gangs, you cut off their source of demand and their funding. And since we all know that many of us won't ever give up our weed, as we shouldn't have to, then the only logical answer is to legalize it. You legalize weed and then you cut a significant portion of what is driving the Mexican cartels.

[UConn James]

Though I think you are correct about the fact that if we legalize things like Pot it won't get rid of the black market it will stil put a lid on most of the violence. There is still a market for illegal booze but we don't here news about people being being killed in booze wars in Mexico.

 

Then they'd just kill each other over something else.

 

They'll make meth and hard drugs in more quantity, and send them north for people who want an even bigger high. It's like the dude who used to jerk off to his imagination, then when that doesn't get him anymore, uses the Sears catalog, then Victoria's secret, then Playboy, then hardcore, then pornos, then gonzo, then kiddie porn. Each step just leads to a higher threshold.

Edited February 19, 2012 by UConn James

[whateverdude]

Your point being?

Druggy, unless you wants an army of Whitney Houstons running around that would not be a good idea.

[Magox]

Then they'd just kill each other over something else.

 

They'll make meth and hard drugs in more quantity, and send them north for people who want an even bigger high. It's like the dude who used to jerk off to his imagination, then when that doesn't get him anymore, uses the Sears catalog, then Victoria's secret, then Playboy, then hardcore, then pornos, then gonzo, then kiddie porn. Each step just leads to a higher threshold.

No offense, but that is some faulty logic you got there. That flies in the face of conventional economic wisdom. Adding supply does not typically lead to added demand. This is a demand issue, there is a high demand for marijuana, not meth or heroine. Marijuana is not any more if not even less dangerous than alcohol. The demand will always be there for marijuana because every day that passes people are getting properly educated on marijuana, and they are learning that it isn't any sort of drug that creates physical hazard, at least not any more so than alcohol. Marijuana is almost as socially acceptable as alcohol, which ties in with this being a demand issue.

 

Marijuana is BY FAR the number cash cow for the cartels, the idea that they will be able to supplant marijuana with meth or heroine as their cash cow is absurd.

[Booster4324]

Then they'd just kill each other over something else.

 

They'll make meth and hard drugs in more quantity, and send them north for people who want an even bigger high. It's like the dude who used to jerk off to his imagination, then when that doesn't get him anymore, uses the Sears catalog, then Victoria's secret, then Playboy, then hardcore, then pornos, then gonzo, then kiddie porn. Each step just leads to a higher threshold.

 

If you think the Sears catalog leads to kiddie porn, then it is sorta pointless debating ANYTHING with you.

[whateverdude]

What keeps the drug industry going is its huge profit margins. Producing drugs is a very cheap process. Like any commodities business the closer you are to the source the cheaper the product. Processed cocaine is available in Colombia for $1500 dollars per kilo and sold on the streets of America for as much as $66,000 a kilo (retail). Heroin costs $2,600/kilo in Pakistan, but can be sold on the streets of America for $130,000/kilo (retail). And synthetics like methamphetamine are often even cheaper to manufacture costing approximately $300 to $500 per kilo to produce in clandestine labs in the US and abroad and sold on US streets for up to $60,000/kilo (retail).

 

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/math.html#ixzz1mqwqSLDn

 

Drug user expenditures in billions of dollars 1998:

Cocaine.............39

Heroin..............11.6

Marijuana...........10.7

 

legalizing pot will not put a dent in the drug war violence.

 

The C.I.A and other U.S.intelligence sources believe that synthetics like amphetamines and designer drugs like Ecstasy will garner a larger and larger share of the market in years to come.

 

Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/math.html#ixzz1mqyUOrYv

Edited February 19, 2012 by whateverdude

[Magox]

Drug user expenditures in billions of dollars 1998:

Cocaine.............39

Heroin..............11.6

Marijuana...........10.7

 

legalizing pot will not put a dent in the drug war violence.

1998?????

 

Please, if you are gonna try to make an argument,please provide information that at least comes from this millenium.

 

Do you have any idea how much marijuana imports from Mexico has increased since then? Look it up

 

ANd wont put a dent in the drug war violence??? You are talking out your ass as usual.

 

Marijuana accounts for anywhere between 50% to 65% of Mexican cartel revenues, say Mexican and U.S. officials.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614230731506644.html

 

 

Maybe in your little narrow minded world 50-65% won't cause a "dent" but any rational thinking person understands that if you cut down a businesses main revenue generator and cut out anywhere between 1/2 to 2/3 of their total revenues, understands that it would critically impair a business.

 

You see, this is called economics, and from an economic standpoint there is no rational debate on this topic. There isn't, none.

 

Now if you guys want to come at this from a moral or cultural standpoint, then that is debatable. But from pure economics and what it would do to the cartels, your argument doesn't hold water.

 

Will this solve the drug mexican cartel issue? No, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Magox

[whateverdude]

1998?????

 

Please, if you are gonna try to make an argument,please provide information that at least comes from this millenium.

 

Do you have any idea how much marijuana imports from Mexico has increased since then? Look it up

 

ANd wont put a dent in the drug war violence??? You are talking out your ass as usual.

 

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614230731506644.html

 

 

Maybe in your little narrow minded world 50-65% won't cause a "dent" but any rational thinking person understands that if you cut down a businesses main revenue generator and cut out anywhere between 1/2 to 2/3 of their total revenues, understands that it would critically impair a business.

 

You see, this is called economics, and from an economic standpoint there is no rational debate on this topic. There isn't, none.

 

Now if you guys want to come at this from a moral or cultural standpoint, then that is debatable. But from pure economics and what it would do to the cartels, your argument doesn't hold water.

 

Will this solve the drug mexican cartel issue? No, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.

 

who is taking out there ass now? where's your stats?

 

The number of marijuana users has remained fairly constant over time, with some dip in use

during the middle 1990s when prices were relatively high.

Pretty good evidence to suggest that if you make pot hard to get and expensive, the amount of usage will go down.

 

In 2000, Americans spent about $36 billion on cocaine, $10 billion on heroin, $5.4

billion on methamphetamine, $11 billion on marijuana, and $2.4 billion on other

substances (see Table 1).

http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/american_users_spend_2002.pdf

 

Prove to me this has changed!! BTW the pot is clouding your thinking.

Edited February 19, 2012 by whateverdude

[Magox]

who is taking out there ass now? where's your stats?

 

 

Pretty good evidence to suggest that if you make pot hard to get and expensive, the amount of usage will go down.

 

 

http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/american_users_spend_2002.pdf

 

Prove to me this has changed!! BTW the pot is clouding your thinking.

It's right there you dumbass. There is no such thing as "official stats"

 

 

Mexican DTOs earn $1.1 billion to $2 billion from exporting marijuana to the U.S. and selling

it to wholesalers across the southwest border. Legalizing marijuana in California would

present two sources of competition. The obvious one is marijuana sold legally in California

to California residents and drug “tourists” visiting from out of state, as well as legalized home

cultivation. A less obvious but potentially more important threat is marijuana diverted from

legal distribution channels. The latter includes marijuana that is grown legally in California

but then smuggled to another state and sold illegally there, as well as marijuana sold to underage

users in California.

We believe that legalizing marijuana in California would effectively eliminate Mexican

DTOs’ revenues from supplying Mexican-grown marijuana to the California market. As we

elaborate in this chapter, even with taxes, legally produced marijuana would likely cost no

more than would illegal marijuana from Mexico and would cost less than half as much per

unit of THC (Kilmer, Caulkins, Pacula, et al., 2010). Thus, the needs of the California market

would be supplied by the new legal industry. While, in theory, some DTO employees might

choose to work in the legal marijuana industry, they would not be able to generate unusual

profits, nor be able to draw on talents that are particular to a criminal organization.

We also believe that Mexican DTOs would eventually lose all revenue stemming from

the selling of Mexican marijuana to underage users in California. When it becomes possible

in California for anyone over the age of 21 to provide juveniles with marijuana that is cheaper,

better, and subject to more quality control, Mexican DTOs will have no more competitive

advantage than they would trying to sell alcohol and cigarettes to California youth today.

 

Now if that argument applies to Californi, then it certainly applies to the US

 

http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/2010/RAND_OP325.pdf

 

And that comes from the Rand Corporation which many studies show that their estimates lowball most others including that from the U.N The Rand Corporation are not proponents of the legalization of marijuana, and they themselves concede that it would virtually cripple Mexican marijuana revenues for the cartels.

 

 

 

They base it off of drug seizures and studies. And US officials estimate that 50 to 65% of Mexican cartel revenues come from Mexico, thats not what I'm saying, thats what US and Mexican officials estimate. Now you may try to change the subject with a 1998 or 2000 year study that shows total gross consumption in dollars, which has nothing to do with this conversation. Meanwhile, I'll talk about the topic at hand.

 

Now try to keep up with me and focus here for a second. Are we not talking about Mexican imported marijuana? yes or no? Why are we talking about Mexican marijuana? Could it be because of the cartels and violence? Could it be that the point of this discussion is how cutting off a significiant portion of Mexican marijuana imports would contribute to defunding the cartels? The burden of proof is on you, now show me a different study that shows that marijuana is not a Mexican main revenue generator. And show me with whatever number you provide how that wouldn't seriously impact their revenues and funding.

 

Show me and make the case.

 

If not, then stop wasting my time.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Magox

[ieatcrayonz]

If you think the Sears catalog leads to kiddie porn, then it is sorta pointless debating ANYTHING with you.

I'd ask Whitney Houston if pot leads to harder drugs except she's dead so I can't ask her.

[LeviF]

Druggy, unless you wants an army of Whitney Houstons running around that would not be a good idea.

I don't know. Right about now, a bunch of black women who sing pretty well and talk really loudly doesn't seem as bad as finding a few heads in the road.

[GG]

Druggy, unless you wants an army of Whitney Houstons running around that would not be a good idea.

You're right. Lets get all the druggies off the streets and into the bars. It's Ladies Night somewhere. Woo hoo. Pot is evil man.

[Jauronimo]

I don't know. Right about now, a bunch of black women who sing pretty well and talk really loudly doesn't seem as bad as finding a few heads in the road.

Who you calling loud?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Gi28pNruA

Edited February 20, 2012 by Jauronimo