Hillary Clinton: drug legalization won't end the problem

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rentahamster

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
s-HILLARY-CLINTON-DRUG-large.jpg


Transcript and Video: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/30/highlights_from_hillary_clintons_fp_address

We are formulating our own response to the votes of two of our states, as you know, and what that means for the federal system, the federal laws, and law enforcement. So I respect those in the region who believe strongly that that would end the problem. I am not convinced of that, just speaking personally. I think when you've got ruthless, vicious people who have made money one way, if it's somehow blocked, they'll figure out another way. They'll do kidnapping, they'll do extortion. They will suborn officials and basically take over swathes of territory that they will govern and terrorize people in.

So I don't think that's the answer. Whether there is some movement that can be discussed, I think will have to be a topic for the future for us.
Click to expand...



http://www.politico.com/politico44/...on-not-the-answer-to-the-drug-war-150696.html
"I think you can, with a comprehensive strategy succeed in certainly pushing back the tide of violence and corruption that drug trafficking brings," she said.

Clinton said ultimately that institution building and improving the quality of life in developing nations would help stem the drug trade.

"Ultimately, it's about providing greater opportunity, greater education, greater economic jobs and growth to a population so that they can have a real stake in their society and be partners with their government," she said.
Click to expand...
Clinton said that anti-cartel and trafficking efforts in Colombia and Mexico have been successful in quelling some of the worst of the violence.

"I remember very well when then-[Colombian] President Uribe couldn't' even be Inaugurated without the drug traffickers in alliance with the [terrorist group] FARC basically firing artillery rounds into the square where the inauguration is supposed to be," Clinton said.
Click to expand...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/hillary-clinton-drug-legalization-war_n_2218072.html
Clinton also commented on the recent passage of historic measures in Colorado and Washington legalizing the recreational use of marijuana.

"We are formulating our own response to the votes of two of our states as you know -- what that means for the federal system, the federal laws and law enforcement," she said.

Marijuana is still illegal at the federal level.

Earlier this month, Raymond Yans, the head of the U.N.'s drug watchdog agency, criticized the U.S. for sending "a wrong message abroad" with its passage of the landmark legalization in Colorado and Washington, and urged the U.S. to challenge both states.

He said he hoped Attorney General Eric Holder "will take all the necessary measures" to ensure that marijuana use remains illegal in the U.S.
Click to expand...


Semi-related HuffPo Article: California Marijuana Decriminalization Drops Youth Crime Rate To Record Low: Study


It might not "end" the problem, but cutting out a significant amount of cartels' funding would have a negative effect on their ability to do bad things.
 
gCyeW.jpg



Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Feds should stay out of this.

Criminals will be criminals. YOU DON'T SAY??
 
So her take on the issue is that if you take away profit from criminals they'll find other ways to make profit? So... what... don't do anything?
 
Jimothy said:
I'll never understand the left's adoration of Hillary.
Click to expand...

Bill's wife that's about as far as it goes. People seem to think a presidency by her would by extension be Bill's they would be sorely disappointed.
 
I think she's right in that the cartels wouldn't just hang up their hat and call it a day if all drugs were legal. That being said, this would certainly give them less avenues of making money, and it would at least slow things down for a while.
 
uh, the "left" doesn't adore Hillary or even Bill. You guys miss 2008? DLC?

I am rather fond of both, however. She just happens to be wrong, and we already tried this experiment (prohibition and repeal)
 
Someone give her a bong hit and make her shut the fuck up
 
DarkKyo said:
So her take on the issue is that if you take away profit from criminals they'll find other ways to make profit? So... what... don't do anything?
Click to expand...

This is what I'm getting from these statements. Get the fuck outta here, Hilary.
 
DUFFMCWALIN said:
Fuck off feds. Jesus Christ this country.
Click to expand...

Seriously. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, now get your grubby federal hands off of my fucking weed. What happened to the idea of a democracy? This is the epitome of the illusion of choice. Where the majority seeks a simple change to a major issue but the powers that influence the US government seek to silence the people's voices.
 
I think when you've got ruthless, vicious people who have made money one way, if it's somehow blocked, they'll figure out another way. They'll do kidnapping, they'll do extortion.
Click to expand...

So by this logic, if we ban fast food restaurants, will McDonald's start producing smartphones?
 
Fuck off feds, and fuck off UN. Weed isn't the same as coke or heroin, you imbeciles.

Weed is good. Weed is god. Must smoke weed. Must become weed.
 
But throwing people into jail will?
Also, you might want to ask yourself how we got ruthless vicious people to sell drugs.
It wasn't always like that.

Don't be on the wrong side of history Hillary.
Timedog said:
Weed isn't the same as coke or heroin, you imbeciles.
Click to expand...
Of course not, cocaine is schedule II.
 
Because the most hard hitting criminals are making most of their profit off weed. Get the fuck outta here.
 
The marijuana legalization is more than just downsizing the violence involved.

It is what it does to those arrested and put to the process for possessing something that is extremely more benign than alcohol and tobacco.

Edit: Also drug legalization has to do more with actually treating drug addiction for what it is, a medical problem. Throwing coke, heroin and meth users in prison does society no good. Allocating that expense to treating drug addicts for what they are can actually make a change or society.
 
Eggman said:
Because the most hard hitting criminals are making most of their profit off weed. Get the fuck outta here.
Click to expand...
What drug trade causes most gun violence in Chicago?

Weed. People think it's always the hard drugs like heroin, crack, cocaine, etc. that only leads to violence, but the sheer volume of the weed trade outweighs that.
 
Eh, I think people here are interpreting her comments incorrectly. She's not talking domestically. I don't think she's wrong either.

100% legalizing drugs in the U.S. won't make the international cartels go away, it will put pressure on them, and they will lash out in desperation. And if we're talking internationally - then yes to the feds. They shouldn't use outside pressure to stifle domestic laws, but that's not really what she's talking about.

International policy doesn't equal domestic and you're naive if you think those are inextricably linked.
 
The difference between criminals trying to make money through selling drugs, and trying to make money through kidnapping or extortion, is the general populace is willing to support the former, and not the latter. It's unfortunate that people so poor at thinking get to make big decisions. There will probably be a period where the cartels have to resort to more extreme measures to procure their wealth, but it's a death wail.
 
I think when you've got ruthless, vicious people who have made money one way, if it's somehow blocked, they'll figure out another way. They'll do kidnapping, they'll do extortion.
Click to expand...

What's ironic about this quote is that it could also be used to describe the corporations that seek to keep marijuana illegal to protect profits.
 
TangoAlphaLima said:
So by this logic, if we ban fast food restaurants, will McDonald's start producing smartphones?
Click to expand...

To be fair, look at alcohol prohibition in this country. Companies that made alcohol didn't disappear they just started making other products. Which makes sense: They already had factories, workers, capital, etc. It was kind of a forced pivot.

Clinton is right, these big organized crime syndicates won't just disappear overnight, they'll try other things and probably violent crimes in the short term. In the long term a smaller economy (because of less income from drugs) would lead to less organized crime though.
 
If most of the money for these criminal organizations comes from drugs, wouldn't taking away their business hurt them, like, a LOT? Yes, they might turn towards other avenues, but then it should be easier to focus on stopping that. They'll be weakened and on the back foot.

But fuck all that, lets just keep them at full strength and try and fight them that way. Makes a lot of sense. Thanks government!
 
If it were possible I'd fornicate with the concept of weed. Like just the idea of it. Take that cartels!
 
Guevara said:
To be fair, look at alcohol prohibition in this country. Companies that made alcohol didn't disappear they just started making other products. Which makes sense: They already had factories, workers, capital, etc. It was kind of a forced pivot.

Clinton is right, these big organized crime syndicates won't just disappear overnight, they'll try other things and probably violent crimes in the short term. In the long term a smaller economy (because of less income from drugs) would lead to less organized crime though.
Click to expand...


On the other hand "They'll do kidnapping, they'll do extortion. They will suborn officials and basically take over swathes of territory that they will govern and terrorize people in." is exactly what they're doing today anyway
 
El_TigroX said:
Eh, I think people here are interpreting her comments incorrectly. She's not talking domestically. I don't think she's wrong either.

100% legalizing drugs in the U.S. won't make the international cartels go away, it will put pressure on them, and they will lash out in desperation. And if we're talking internationally - then yes to the feds. They shouldn't use outside pressure to stifle domestic laws, but that's not really what she's talking about.

International policy doesn't equal domestic and you're naive if you think those are inextricably linked.
Click to expand...

But they are been spoken in the context of the recent election by CO and WA.

Yes legalizing soft drugs won't make the mexico border and the cartels more peaceful, but it will make our nation a better one.
 
El_TigroX said:
And if we're talking internationally - then yes to the feds. They shouldn't use outside pressure to stifle domestic laws, but that's not really what she's talking about.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what she is talking about... pressuring the Latin American countries that have recently discussed legalization following CO/WA not to legalize
 
if it's somehow blocked, they'll figure out another way. They'll do kidnapping, they'll do extortion.
Click to expand...
Which are not nearly as profitable as drugs. And they already do this anyway.

They will suborn officials and basically take over swathes of territory that they will govern and terrorize people in.
Click to expand...
They already do this too, supported by all their drug money :/
"Ultimately, it's about providing greater opportunity, greater education, greater economic jobs and growth to a population so that they can have a real stake in their society and be partners with their government," she said.
Click to expand...
No reason we can't do all of these things. This is a multi-pronged problem that requires a multi-pronged solution.
 
So I guess we shouldn't have ended alcohol prohibition then?

What a fucking idiot. I'm sure she doesn't actually believe this shit she's just serving other interests. Politicians being politicians. Fuck 'em.
 
Kidnapping is a little bit harder than selling a plant. In the harvesting, transportation, and collection of fees. Somehow I doubt kidnapping will be as efficient for the criminals, Hills.
 
DarkKyo said:
Seriously. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, now get your grubby federal hands off of my fucking weed. What happened to the idea of a democracy? This is the epitome of the illusion of choice. Where the majority seeks a simple change to a major issue but the powers that influence the US government seek to silence the people's voices.
Click to expand...

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

High-End Headphone help
14
188
Digital-Aftertaste replied
Is music evolution reaching an end?
Opinion  2
66
1K
Laptop1991 replied
  • Poll
Which is worse: Food or Drug Addiction?
2
74
3K
NuncaBob replied
The inherent problem with smashburgers
2
55
3K
Champomade replied
South Park: The End Of Obesity
19
2K
digital_ghost replied
Top Bottom