A question isolationism vs intervention?

Legalize what exactly? weed? that's not exactly there ownly source of pesos {mexican dollars}. Mexico needs
an age of wake the fuck then things will change.

Legalize all drugs. The government shouldn't tell you what you can and can't do with your body, especially when the effects of prohibition are as bad as they are.

1) Didn't you say that you were against legalizing hard drugs?
2) So they probably shouldn't. But they can certainly tell you what is in the interest of others.
3) As opposed to the alternative?

1.) No.
2.) That's okay dude, because others don't have to use drugs. The least they could do is allow states to regulate drugs as they see fit instead of federal control.
3.) Umm, a legitimate, regulated industry not funding dangerous criminal organizations and terrorist groups, that doesn't put lives at risk, that more easily allows people to get help for drug abuse and dependence and increases the personal freedoms of individuals and eases the stress on our law enforcement and prison systems, and stops punishing people for a life choice.

Shaw look it's a good idea but it wont' work!
Small dealers are out of buissness yeagh but big barons will just use their massive amount's of money
to make "legitamate companies". Just put yourself on their shoes and you have a do or die situation?

If the government saw these "big barons" spend all that money without a (legitimate) record of how it was acquired they would be showing up at their door step real quick like, just like they did with Al Capone. There's a reason people who deal in illegitimate businesses can only spend their money on the black market.

And how would that be worse anyway? If these people were running illegitimate businesses now, isn't that better than them running massive criminal operations?

I stand corrected now lets see if the pious mexican avg citizens will follow that.. NOPE because it would make
them look weak and controlled and they won't concede and that i respect!

EDIT" no bouble post or mods will come and fuck-snap at you...they did it to me and dude wtf
are you questioning yourself now?

Now I lost you.

I meant to edit that in, and not quote my other post, it was supposed to apart of that post.

Remember when I said that the government is partly to protect me from the stupidity of others?
Here is an example where it can be applied.
I'll leave marijuana out of this, since we already discussed that one at length.
Regarding some of the others however, such as cocaine or heroine, let me ask you: can the users of such drugs not pose a threat to the safety of the common citizen?
Like with alcohol, one could easily imagine a problem with individuals becoming intoxicated on such substances when it is... less than convenient for others. DUIs are just an example of one such unfortunate instance.
One could only speculate (unless there has been a sufficient demonstration for or against) that such substances as cocaine, heroine, etc. could be a larger problem. Undoubtely, they would add to the already prevailent problem of committing actions while intoxicated. Which, I might point out, continue in spite of all the regulation in place.

Federal or state is not really my concern, as long as those I care for and I are not under threat.

As I stated before, my concern is not regulation or non-regulation, more the affect that the allowance or disallowance of the use of such substances has on those I care about and myself.
If it is a positive, sure. If it is a negative, no, I will not support it.

1) I see that you follow Kali's interpretation of my post before. Well, as I pointed out then, I might just happen to view the whole industry in a negative light, regardless of who is involved or the legality of it.
2) Help them with drug dependence? After addicting them? That is like sticking someone in the gut with a sword and then offering to help bandage the wound.
3) The freedoms of the individual must always be balanced against the wel-being of the society as a whole. In some cases, the individual takes priority as a philisophical point. In others, the society must take priority for practical reasons. I believe that this is a case of the latter more than the former.
4) Eases the stress, yes, but not to the extent that you would probably expect ('you' just being a general term referring to advocates of legalization). Yes, there would theoretically be a collapsing of the cartels, (to an extent only though, as they operate outside of US jurisdiction) which will help greatly in the long term. On the other hand, the problem with addicts remains. Add that to the fact that, like it or not, many people (I would not, without statistics that I do not have time to search for now and thus just rely on experience and common sense, say the majority) consider 'legal' to be 'good' and 'illegal' to be 'bad'. Thus, we may (in theory only, as we would have to apply such a test to the US circumstances to be sure) have a rise in the use of the drugs. Under legalization, that would not be a problem but for the possible social and economic reprecussions of allowing them. That is to say, you might end up with increased drug-related crime, regardless of legalization. The police forces would have to deal with the affect and be unable to combat the cause, as the drugs would be legal.
I make no illusions that in the long term you would probably see a decrease in drug-related crime overall, but in the interim, you would probably see the rise of the use of legal drugs that end up causing illegal activity to rise.
Either way, the law-enforcement agencies of the US will have alot on their plate.

Well, you guys write too much stuff, I didn't read all of it. As long as there is demand, there will be offer. I agree with Shaw, the goverment can't say you what you can take/drink/eat or not. BUT, I disagree, sadly, with the legalization of all drugs; I would allow cocaine to certanin extent, but heroine and such are way too adictive and destructive to the body.
So yeah, intervention or not, as long as people want drugs, there will be drugs.

I would consider cocaine to be part way between being a hard and soft drug, as some people seem to be able to handle it and it's use, while others can have their lives ruined by it. But I'm definitely for the legalization of all soft drugs.

At least Shaw here is not one of those people who just goes around yelling "Legalize all the drugs"

just throwing this here

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/mexico-poll/

Rather then training elite task forces the USA can help train and arm the entire federal forces, not to mention thy can sell there old weapons for cheap PEMEX oil.

Well, I do say that.

Guess what you mexican's are gona get...NO HELP from us listener no more f-cing intervention's for oil.

Rom we already are training and helping to arm the fedarals, it's in their semi-capable hands now.

Shaw you and your freinds should just drink some all natural snake poison and just leave this world that's how much
i disagree with you!

Oh what a lovely sentiment...

I don't support the use of drugs, and honestly I would like Shaw to be a little more "moderate", but don't you think that wishing them death is a little too extreme?

people argue that drugs are ok because there natural and mother nature made them {big part of arguments for legalizing drugs}.
That is why i wish them a bit of poison for them to drink.