Anyone up for a trip to Nuevo Laredo?

[JG]

Originally Posted by Bitterwhiteguy

So do I, just not online. A swear is a swear, even if you don't believe it's blasphemy.

That's all right BWG...I drop the f-bomb all the time, and that sure as hell ain't happening right now either.

[stevehorn]

Originally Posted by snide aside

Smoking cigarettes is on the decline because it is not romanticised anymore and a pack of cigs is almost the price of a VW Jetta.

I strongly believe in educating kids - inundating them with as much information as we can afford. This sure can't hurt. But as long as there are those that will insist that smoking pot is not harmful, we will have a problem. Doesn't it make sense that anytime you addle your brain with either drugs or alcohol, you become a possible menace to society - particularly if you are on the road?

It's a little disheartening that this has to be pointed out to, presumably, adults on this blog. And, what's even more ironic, is the same "adults" will become highly indignant when someone lights up a cig in the elevator. They'll simmer over this whilst smoking a doobie and sipping a rita or ten at their house.

As was discussed on this blog, obesity can be fixed with proper dieting, but stupid is forever!

A philosophical question is whether the illegality of drugs, particularly pot, contributes to the attraction of their use, particularly among the young. There is a certain thrill of doing something illegal, or something you've been told not to do, and getting away with it when you are a kid.

Personally I tend toward the legalization of pot and the decriminalization of the use of many other drugs. I believe we have reached the point where criminalization of the use is detrimental to society as a whole and woefully ineffective in reducing their use. On the usage side, we need to move toward a system that emphasizes the treatment of the problem rather than tries to rely on punishment to stop it.

[Bitterwhiteguy]

Originally Posted by JG

That's all right BWG...I drop the f-bomb all the time, and that sure as hell ain't happening right now either.

That might be the hardest part of my job, tempering my use of swear words.

[JG]

BWG, I was referring to the actual meaning of the word. Not the swearing...the word itself.

THAT is what isn't going on.

Well, I take that back. Given the last offer I got from my wife's lawyer, I'd say it IS happening. And without any KY.

[Bitterwhiteguy]

Originally Posted by JG

BWG, I was referring to the actual meaning of the word. Not the swearing...the word itself.

THAT is what isn't going on.

Well, I take that back. Given the last offer I got from my wife's lawyer, I'd say it IS happening. And without any KY.

Do I need to drag you to Spearmint Rhino myself? Go get some ass, man. This is the time for meaningless rebound sex.

[T-Horn]

You need to get yourself a slump buster and fast, JG. Don't go for the 10, just go for something.

[snide aside]

Originally Posted by Duke Silver

You're citing the agency whose existence is based on drug prohibition. Jesus christ I can't believe how f*cking hopelessly daft you are.

Duke Silver - as a pedi mechanic, I'm solidly in the corner of saving babies and not killing them. Abortion is the greatest shame in the history of this country.

But, in your case, I might have to re-consider.

[Bitterwhiteguy]

That's one down. Duke, you now have a path for reversing the tides of anti-abortion in this country: relentlessly being a complete & utter dick to every Republican you can find.

[Duke Silver]

Originally Posted by snide aside

Duke Silver - as a pedi mechanic, I'm solidly in the corner of saving babies and not killing them. Abortion is the greatest shame in the history of this country.

But, in your case, I might have to re-consider.

Slavery?

[JG]

Originally Posted by bitterwhiteguy

that's one down. Duke, you now have a path for reversing the tides of anti-abortion in this country: Relentlessly being a complete & utter dick to everybody

fify

[Diverdog]

Originally Posted by Bitterwhiteguy

Do I need to drag you to Spearmint Rhino myself? Go get some ass, man. This is the time for meaningless rebound sex.

No kidding. He needs to be throwing his dick on the crap table of luv. The man needs to get unblocked.

[JG]

Easy to say. More difficult to execute the plan.

[Bitterwhiteguy]

Originally Posted by JG

Easy to say. More difficult to execute the plan.

Cash one of your paychecks & take it to a strip club. It will be easier than you could possibly imagine.

[Bitterwhiteguy]

A great case in point as to why running our military into other countries on drug interdiction/assassination missions won't be as easy as Gamma thinks.

[cctxfan]

Originally Posted by Bitterwhiteguy

A great case in point as to why running our military into other countries on drug interdiction/assassination missions won't be as easy as Gamma thinks.

Well, Gamma did reply last night, some rambling about Democrats, but I see he deleted it.

Here's a good detailed account of both sides and I tend to believe the local villagers are probably lying about the innocent people they claim were shot. Most of the village is involved in drug smuggling and what better story to come up with in order to terminate anti-drug operations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/wo...tout.html?_r=1

Of course, I'm still completely against the failed war on drugs.

[GammaEta67]

Originally Posted by cctxfan

Well, Gamma did reply last night, some rambling about Democrats, but I see he deleted it.

Here's a good detailed account of both sides and I tend to believe the local villagers are probably lying about the innocent people they claim were shot. Most of the village is involved in drug smuggling and what better story to come up with in order to terminate anti-drug operations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/wo...tout.html?_r=1

Of course, I'm still completely against the failed war on drugs.

We just don't think alike. Apparently you view all of my ideas in some totally different way than they are intended, and I'm beginning to believe that you can't help it. If that's the case, fine. No problem. It just means that discussion of anything with you is a waste of time.

For your information, I never suggested that the DEA be used to conduct foreign operations. The DEA should be limited to domestic enforcement only. And I never suggested that we should get involved in stopping single shipments, as was apparently done in this case. My suggestion is that we should use special ops military forces and high tech surveillance and targeting technology to disrupt major operations centers used by the cartels in much the same way as we have used SEALs, unmanned drones and C-130s to disrupt Al Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

International drug cartels target American youth at a vulnerable age, and in many ways they are ten times more dangerous than Al Qaida. As indicated previously in this thread, the cost to the U.S. of illegal drug use is $200 billion annually. Drugs destroy lives and families, and those who would profit from targeting Americans in this fashion should be regarded as enemies of the United States. Of course you don't see it that way, so you make all kinds of suggestions about my views on this that have nothing to do with reality, and it's becoming a little tiresome. Unfortunately, this sort of disconnect between what I am saying and how it is interpreted has been present for a long time, and I don't expect it to change.

The bottom line is, if we have a problem, whether it is importation of illegal drugs into the United States, lack of excellence in education, lack of physical fitness among Americans, loss of jobs to foreign competition, unnecessary dependence on foreign oil, deficit spending, increasing debt, or what have you, we should go to the heart of the problem and solve it as quickly as possible in the most cost-effective way. Why that never seems to happen is beyond me. Unfortunately, the fact that our democracy can't recognize and respond to these kinds legitimate threats in a more effective and timely fashion suggests that something very serious is wrong with the way we are going about things.

[cctxfan]

Originally Posted by GammaEta67

We just don't think alike. Apparently you view all of my ideas in some totally different way than they are intended, and I'm beginning to believe that you can't help it. If that's the case, fine. No problem. It just means that discussion of anything with you is a waste of time.

Your comment last night had nothing to do with the above. You made some snarky remark regarding BWG's post, something along the lines of "no surprise a Democrat would post something like that." And then you deleted it.

That's all I was referring to. How am I viewing that statement in a different way than you intended?

As to the actual war on drugs, if you want to talk about that, be my guest - we'll respond in kind. If you say our arguments are getting tiresome, so are yours.

Here's where we differ. You think we have the ability and should spend enormous sums of money to utilize the military and other law enforcement mechanisms to artificially curb the supply of drugs.

I and others disagree this is possible. Why? Because drugs, in some form or another, have been around for thousands of years, and for most of that time have been legal. Hell, you could easily and legally get Laudanum (opium tincture) here in the US until the mid-20th century. Not to mention there is an *enormous* demand for illicit drugs here in the US and worldwide.

We also have an historical example of what happens when you criminalize a widely used drug (alcohol) and then decriminalize it. By all accounts, prohibition was a massive failure.

Do drugs destroy lives and families? Of course! But so does the war on drugs, not to mention again, it costs an enormous sum of taxpayer money with questionable results. Moreover, drugs are as about as easy to get as they ever were. Alcohol and tobacco destroy families too, but where is the rush to criminalize those substances?

Choosing to legalize drugs comes with a host of problems. No one disputes that. It's simply the lesser of two evils. Taken on the whole, decriminalizing drugs will pose less problems than the war on drugs causes and costs.

[TrueHorn]

Originally Posted by JG

Easy to say. More difficult to execute the plan.

Take it slow and easy JG. There's a fair amount of grieving to do when a long term marriage ends. Do things for yourself that you didn't do when married.

[SAhornfan]

Originally Posted by TrueHorn

Do things for yourself that you didn't do when married.

Getting a BJ would be a good start.

[GammaEta67]

Originally Posted by cctxfan

Your comment last night had nothing to do with the above. You made some snarky remark regarding BWG's post, something along the lines of "no surprise a Democrat would post something like that." And then you deleted it.

That's all I was referring to. How am I viewing that statement in a different way than you intended?

As to the actual war on drugs, if you want to talk about that, be my guest - we'll respond in kind. If you say our arguments are getting tiresome, so are yours.

Here's where we differ. You think we have the ability and should spend enormous sums of money to utilize the military and other law enforcement mechanisms to artificially curb the supply of drugs.

I and others disagree this is possible. Why? Because drugs, in some form or another, have been around for thousands of years, and for most of that time have been legal. Hell, you could easily and legally get Laudanum (opium tincture) here in the US until the mid-20th century. Not to mention there is an *enormous* demand for illicit drugs here in the US and worldwide.

We also have an historical example of what happens when you criminalize a widely used drug (alcohol) and then decriminalize it. By all accounts, prohibition was a massive failure.

Do drugs destroy lives and families? Of course! But so does the war on drugs, not to mention again, it costs an enormous sum of taxpayer money with questionable results. Moreover, drugs are as about as easy to get as they ever were. Alcohol and tobacco destroy families too, but where is the rush to criminalize those substances?

Choosing to legalize drugs comes with a host of problems. No one disputes that. It's simply the lesser of two evils. Taken on the whole, decriminalizing drugs will pose less problems than the war on drugs causes and costs.

Two points: (a) you misinterpreted my post from last night; and (b) you now choose to respond only to selective parts of my follow up post. Therefore it is not surprising that you have no clue what I am talking about.

For your information, the so-called "war on drugs" has failed for the same reason we failed to win the war in Vietnam. Neither was ever intended as a real war. We could have won Vietnam in a matter of weeks; but we held our soldiers in check and prevented them from pursuing and destroying the N. Vietnamese headquarters in Hanoi and Haiphong. Likewise, we could have shut down the cartels a long time ago, but we haven't permitted our military to destroy their headquarters and major operations centers and eliminate their leadership. You can't win a war that you don't intend to win, and we've never really intended to win the war on drugs.

Furthermore, I deleted my post from last night precisely because of the concern that it would be misinterpreted. But I'll be happy to post it again to test that theory. The image was from the War of the Worlds, and the caption was:

The sad thing about Democrats is they lack scientific imagination.