GOP talk of military action in Mexico sparks dire warnings
thehill.com
Rising GOP support for the U.S. taking unilateral military action in Mexico against drug cartels is increasingly rattling people on both sides of the border who worry talk of an attack is getting normalized.
Wednesday’s Republican presidential primary debate featured high-stakes policy disagreements on a range of issues from abortion to the environment — but found near-unanimous consensus on the idea of using American military force to fight drug smuggling and migration.
You are viewing a single comment
That's completely out of the question in the Nanny States of America. The republicans want their "small government" to tell you what you're allowed to put in or do to your own body, so free will would never be acceptable.
I'm sorry, but do you have the same position on gun laws (about nannies)?
Cause we are talking about heavy narcotics, that usually don't give you a second chance. Guns don't make you physically, medically dependent and unable to reconsider.
If that's your point of view on narcotics, then in it one should also be able to own an Abrams tank with all the weaponry, legally.
Now, light drugs are fine, but Mexican cartels don't deal in that.
I think the difference is drugs do damage to mostly yourself while guns do damage to mostly others.
Under influence of drugs you can inflict any conceivable damage on others, which you wouldn't without drugs.
Taking a drug is a choice, getting shot is not. Stop being obtuse and conflating separate issues. Shame on you.
Yes, it's a choice that you are going to possibly lose control of yourself and do various things you wouldn't usually. If we are treating intoxication by cocaine or anything else as negligible while determining criminal responsibility for murders etc, that is, that every act under intoxication was intentional - then I'm fine with legalizing all drugs.
Don't know what you're talking about, every act under intoxication is already legally intentional. "It's not rape officer, I was drunk!" Doesn't hold up in court
Well, then fine. The more coke sniffers - the fewer coke sniffers, rephrasing the joke about suicides.
Pretty sure the "I was super coked out" defense has yet to be tried in court, but I can't imagine it would be effective
Where I live (a red state), things like weed and mushrooms are still extremely illegal. I have a multiple AR's that I built myself. And I respect those guns and would never use them in an irresponsible manner. But knowing how insanely stupid half the country is, it terrifies me that almost ANYBODY can legally own an AR. We need to have better control over who is allowed near these extremely dangerous weapons. And yes, they are extremely dangerous. If you've seen what high velocity rounds do to things, it's understandable. But there's no reason to restrict responsible gun owners from owning them. Ban AR's and people will still have access to other weapons that are just as dangerous.
But telling people what they're allowed to do with their own bodies, whether it be weed, mushrooms, abortions, etc is a complete distortion of the spirit of the constitution. If we made safer drugs legal, people would be far less likely to use more potent and deadly drugs. Sometimes people just want to get high, and if they can't get weed they get so desperate that they are making soda bottle meth. Or buying who knows what from some shady dude on a corner somewhere. If you legalize something, then we can regulate it, and people feel safer seeking help with their addictions.
Put it this way. If there isn't a victim, then it shouldn't be a crime.
Yes, I meant that guns increase the damage from an irresponsible person, while drugs make them more irresponsible. So somewhat comparable as factors.
Drugs you put into your body. Bullets you put into someone else's. They are not the same.
They are not the same, but they both affect the probability of bullets being put anywhere.
I'll formulate this differently - if a person taking drugs is legally fully responsible for everything done under their effect, then I'm all for full legalization. No excuses, like what a mental health problem would be, because taking drugs is a choice.
Good news for you- they are responsible.
Well, then there's nothing to argue about for us, but you'll see various kinds of unofficial social discrimination of the users of such drugs through every loophole possible. Even being a person who takes medicine to not see hallucinations or not have impaired judgement is unpleasant socially. Nobody wants to live near a person who takes medicine in order to see hallucinations and get their judgement impaired to feel good. Except for other such people.
EDIT: I mean, similar to alcohol, nothing really new here.
A) You should try to avoid fallacious arguments. Comparing drugs with guns is a terrible false equivalence. It's also just flat out wrong.
B) You're "guns don't make you unable to reconsider" is one of the dumbest takes possible. If you use a gun for it's sole intended purpose, you could kill yourself or someone else. That's absolutely something you can't reconsider. Dead is dead.
Drugs have the potential to kill ONE person, the person who made the decision to ingest them. Guns have the potential to kill many people.
There are SO many other arguments you could have made against relaxing drug policy, you chose poorly.
It can be right or wrong depending on the set of criteria to compare them. Since I haven't said anything as absolute as you did in your "A" statement, I'd say you're the one to do fallacies here.
Drugs make your judgement impaired, so by extension they have the potential to make you do anything, including killing any amount of people.
I don't think I choose my arguments poorly. Natural languages are fuzzy, and when you immediately start with dubious interpretations of what I wrote with a clear goal to prove that someone's right and someone's wrong and not reach the truth possibly by asking questions or having conditional logic in your answers, you just discredit yourself and not me.
What you just said, literally, is the textbook definition of a false equivalence fallacy.
"If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there's a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans."
But that's all irrelevant anyways since you're basically just regurgitating DARE propaganda that has little basis in fact.
The fact is that drugs won't cause a normally reasonable person to suddenly go on a murderous rampage. There are people who have done terrible things under the influence of drugs, but there were always aggravating circumstances. Meanwhile there are millions of recreational drug users who go about their lives every day as productive members of society. You almost definitely know some personally.
No, you just have a problem trying to understand what's said to you, fighting some imagined war in text instead. For what?
I'm equating equal things. There hasn't been an argument here on a level above them.
Also you are imagining a lot of what I'm saying instead of asking me when it's unclear, I think this is deliberate but circumstances of upbringing made you think it's not easy to notice, while it is and also discredits your argument.
Trying to present your opponent as a medium for some entity's propaganda, thus attempting to diminish them as a subject of conversation, is something clearly incompatible with the image you are trying to create with that tone.
A person who'd kill an attacker in self-defense - which is perfectly reasonable - can kill an innocent person under a drug causing hallucinations. That's a very simple and a bit cinematographic example.
Anyway, use of alcohol does that. Of course there are accompanying circumstances, there always are, that's not a counterargument.
The conversation is about cocaine, so irrelevant.
IRL - no, I live in a country where harmless weed gets you a sentence similar to one for heroine. Ex-Soviet laws and all that.
Well, there was one guy, and yes, he's normal morally, but I wouldn't say adequate enough to entrust something important.