Tunnel found under the US/Mexico border

[Apathy]

And yet, when I present it, you don't seem to recognize it.

I recognize it. Not much of a cheerleader though logic stands on its own it doesn need my help to prop it up. Those who do see it get what they can from it those who refuse to see it get what they want from it.

 

[PLC1]

I recognize it. Not much of a cheerleader though logic stands on its own it doesn need my help to prop it up. Those who do see it get what they can from it those who refuse to see it get what they want from it.

True, however the popularity of logic, reason, and fact is highly overestimated. Hype, emotion, and pure baloney are much more likely to be accepted.

 

[Apathy]

True, however the popularity of logic, reason, and fact is highly overestimated. Hype, emotion, and pure baloney are much more likely to be accepted.

Anyone who ever watched Beck knows that.

 

[Gipper]

Seems like an incomplete definition to me what you are describing is socialism/communism or something of the sort. Certainly liberalism extends beyond that. Are they social authoritarians?

Would you agree with this definition of conservatives?

Conservative- The ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets

Oh it is most incomplete. Liberalism is so dastardly and so broad, that one sentence could never define it. Many excellent books have been written on the horrendous ideology that is liberalism.

But, why don't you give me your definition of liberalism?

And, I can agree with your definition of conservatism. But, it too is much broader than one sentence can encompass.

 

[Apathy]

Oh it is most incomplete. Liberalism is so dastardly and so broad, that one sentence could never define it. Many excellent books have been written on the horrendous ideology that is liberalism.

But, why don't you give me your definition of liberalism?

And, I can agree with your definition of conservatism. But, it too is much broader than one sentence can encompass.

Now what if I told you that sentence defines a type of liberalism?

 

[GenSeneca]

Now what if I told you that sentence defines a type of liberalism?

Classical Liberalism... We don't see those types of "liberals" much in today's world, they tend to be Capitalists (like myself) and/or Libertarians.

The typical modern "liberal" (Dem voter) is a Progressive at best and a flat out Communist at worst but an authoritarian in their own right. The typical Conservative (Rep voter) is not much better where authoritarianism is concerned. Both parties seek to control the population and both have failed miserably in the area of fiscal responsibility as well.

Both the Democrat and Republican parties have become increasingly authoritarian and big government Statism has become the standard by which they operate.

 

[BigRob]

It certainly reduced the demand for illegal alcohol.

Well, legalization of murder would certainly reduce the demand for "illegal" murders as well...

The drug cartels will have to find another way to make money? Sure, they might do that, but we can at least eliminate their main source of income. Legalization of alcohol dealt a big blow to the mob.

But there is no actual assurance that you would eliminate their source of income. There is a lot more to legalization than simply saying "Ok, it is legal now."

You have to grant licenses, probably do numerous studies, figure out how to regulate and tax it, produce all the drugs to meet demand domestically... the list goes on and on

Why should they care whether or not they are "off the radar of the government?" No, they will get their fix the easiest way they can.

Whether legal or not, drug use is going to be frowned upon. Higher income people who want to get a fix could easily go "off the radar" to avoid the scarlet letter that would most likely come with public drug use.

Do you want your politicians, business leaders etc going to the nearest medical facility to get their cocaine fix, legal or not?

yes, a few do so as a last resort when they can't afford necessary medications, but that's another issue.

Agreed, it is another issue.

Why wold they do that? It makes no sense.

It makes plenty of sense. As I said, even if legalized, drug use is going to carry a social stigma, and there will always be people willing to pay a premium to get their fix and avoid the stigma. As I said, people will want their politicians, business leaders, community leaders, teachers etc going to a medical facility of pharmacy to get their fix, legal or not.

That is not what happened when alcohol was legalized. How many go to a moonshiner for booze?

Your premise is that legalizing drugs will eliminate the cartels. It is not a true analogy to compare how many people still go to moonshiners, because moonshiners are not the equivalent of the cartel.. the mob would the equivalent of the cartel...

So, for your assertion to be true in this example, legalization of alcohol would need to shut down the mob, which it did not.

 

[PLC1]

Whether legal or not, drug use is going to be frowned upon. Higher income people who want to get a fix could easily go "off the radar" to avoid the scarlet letter that would most likely come with public drug use.

It would be much cheaper to go off the radar and depend on the privacy of the doctor patient relationship.

It would also be more private than resorting to the illegal dealer.

Do you want your politicians, business leaders etc going to the nearest medical facility to get their cocaine fix, legal or not?

As opposed to going to the illegal dealer, who gets his supply from the drug cartel that succeeded in getting access to the US market by cutting off more heads than the competition? Sure.

Your premise is that legalizing drugs will eliminate the cartels. It is not a true analogy to compare how many people still go to moonshiners, because moonshiners are not the equivalent of the cartel.. the mob would the equivalent of the cartel...

So, for your assertion to be true in this example, legalization of alcohol would need to shut down the mob, which it did not.

OK, you have a point. It did not shut down the mob, nor did it put all of the moonshiners out of business. Legalization is not a perfect solution, in that the illegal organizations will still have a small part of the business, and can resort to other illegal activities.

But, is the mob more or less powerful than it was during prohibition?

 

[Apathy]

Classical Liberalism... We don't see those types of "liberals" much in today's world, they tend to be Capitalists (like myself) and/or Libertarians.

The typical modern "liberal" (Dem voter) is a Progressive at best and a flat out Communist at worst but an authoritarian in their own right. The typical Conservative (Rep voter) is not much better where authoritarianism is concerned. Both parties seek to control the population and both have failed miserably in the area of fiscal responsibility as well.

Both the Democrat and Republican parties have become increasingly authoritarian and big government Statism has become the standard by which they operate.

Everything you said is true except it appears you suggested all communists are authoritarians. Granted historically that has been the case but it not really the whole truth. There are anarchist philosophies that practice communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism

 

[BigRob]

It would be much cheaper to go off the radar and depend on the privacy of the doctor patient relationship.

Possibly. It would depend on the language is written in such a law I suppose, however for some high profile (or high dollar) addicts, they will want (and get) their drugs regardless of their doctor's approval.

It would also be more private than resorting to the illegal dealer.

Why would the illegal dealer have more incentive to tell anyone than a doctor?

As opposed to going to the illegal dealer, who gets his supply from the drug cartel that succeeded in getting access to the US market by cutting off more heads than the competition? Sure.

Really? Because I would want my broker, politicians, etc to be drug free..regardless of the source.

OK, you have a point. It did not shut down the mob, nor did it put all of the moonshiners out of business. Legalization is not a perfect solution, in that the illegal organizations will still have a small part of the business, and can resort to other illegal activities.

But, is the mob more or less powerful than it was during prohibition?

Yes, the mob is less powerful now than it was during prohibition... that said, I would point to the fact that the mob was still very powerful in many areas into the 70s (and some of the 80s) with their drug trade, gambling etc...

My point is that there is always going to be an "illegal" way to make a lot of money, and the solution to these problems is not to run around behind these groups legalizing what they do.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Logic doesnt need a cheerleader.

Gipper is like the water boy who after the team wins...who says we won, like he played in the game...so cheering is really all he has...don't take that away

 

[PLC1]

Possibly. It would depend on the language is written in such a law I suppose, however for some high profile (or high dollar) addicts, they will want (and get) their drugs regardless of their doctor's approval.

yes, it would matter just how well the law was written, and the government doesn't have a great track record in writing logical and workable laws lately.

High dollar addicts might get their drugs without a doctor's approval, much as they currently get prescription drugs for recreational use. That wouldn't be a huge section of the illegal drug market, however.

Why would the illegal dealer have more incentive to tell anyone than a doctor?

The illegal dealer wouldn't have an incentive, unless, of course, he was caught and wanted to make a plea bargain. A doctor would have a strong incentive to maintain privacy due to the risk of losing a license to practice. HIPA laws are extremely strict.

Really? Because I would want my broker, politicians, etc to be drug free..regardless of the source.

Sure, that would be preferable, but if the choice is between the pharmacy and the violent cartels, the former would be the better choice.

The bottom line is that passing a law against drugs doesn't eliminate drugs.

Yes, the mob is less powerful now than it was during prohibition... that said, I would point to the fact that the mob was still very powerful in many areas into the 70s (and some of the 80s) with their drug trade, gambling etc...

and now it's mostly drugs. Gambling is less of a draw given the Indian Casinos... do they have those in other states as well as California? Eliminate drug money, and you deal a powerful blow to the gangs and cartels.

My point is that there is always going to be an "illegal" way to make a lot of money, and the solution to these problems is not to run around behind these groups legalizing what they do.

No, not always, but in this case it most likely is.