Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7975704.stm

Because it worked so well for Columbia.

Originally posted by inimalist
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7975704.stm

Because it worked so well for Columbia.

Wrong article. But I see where you're coming from.

Right article:

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/4/1/worldupdates/2009-03-31T220218Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-388089-2&sec=Worldupdates

Cafferty just did a report on what would happen if we legalized drugs in the U.S. In it he pointed out how much money we are wasting on a failed war against drugs and how much money we would save and make if we legalized them and started making them ourselves. His argument was that Americans still get the drugs they want, and the government really hasn't slowed that down at all. In it the final figure was 77 billion dollars of increased revenue for the U.S. (yes we are the biggest consumer of drugs in the world). That would be a lot of money we could spend towards lots more useful things.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Cafferty just did a report on what would happen if we legalized drugs in the U.S. In it he pointed out how much money we are wasting on a failed war against drugs and how much money we would save and make if we legalized them and started making them ourselves. His argument was that Americans still get the drugs they want, and the government really hasn't slowed that down at all. In it the final figure was 77 billion dollars of increased revenue for the U.S. (yes we are the biggest consumer of drugs in the world). That would be a lot of money we could spend towards lots more useful things.

Not to mention that if drugs were legal they would be placed under the purview of regulatory agencies (yes the anarchists will complain but they'll always complain) which would make them safer for users and probably make it slightly more difficult for kids to get than they are now. Also it would put more money into the consumers pockets because they would be spending less on drugs.

Is there any real downside to legalization?

Originally posted by inimalist
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7975704.stm

Because it worked so well for Columbia.
Was that supposed to be Colombia?

Anyway, regardless of the dubious value of warring on drugs, it's a good thing both countries are working together towards the same goal. Not to mention how great it is to have both nations talking of something other than Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Was that supposed to be Colombia?

Anyway, regardless of the dubious value of warring on drugs, it's a good thing both countries are working together towards the same goal. Not to mention how great it is to have both nations talking of something other than Iran's nuclear ambitions.

They're working towards intensifying the war on drugs . . . in Afghanistan.

In case I missed every "Afghanistan" in the article?

Originally posted by backdoorman
In case I missed every "Afghanistan" in the article?

Yes.

They're working together in theory but they never have to let one another set foot on their soil for this. It's not particularly meaningful, now if they were working to stop drug trade between both nations I'd be impressed. This is more of a "meh".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes.

They're working together in theory but they never have to let one another set foot on their soil for this. It's not particularly meaningful, now if they were working to stop drug trade between both nations I'd be impressed. This is more of a "meh".
I can't remember the last time both countries made headlines due to a mutual agreement on a joint venture. Amid the heavy tension surrounding Iran's nuclear power plants, to have both countries talking in a (at least seemingly to us, the public) friendly way about a shared goal, is a good thing.

I don't disagree, I think this is an interesting issue indeed, I thought there might be some good views.

I bring up Columbia because its government's alliance with the Americans has cost it huge standing in its region, and the guerrilla war has cost thousands of lives. Many places in the country are literally ran by drug lords. American military technology and training is used to fight them, but they can easily adapt new trade routes and methods. The Columbian government has seized "homemade" submarines full of coke from jungle camps. For all the lives, money, man hours and vitriolic rhetoric fighting cocaine in Columbia, it has been almost entirely a failure.

As sym pointed out, they have the advantage of being able to subject another nation to these hardships rather than their own, nor are Iran or America's own drug trade issues being addressed. Not to sound conspiratorial or anything, but the Russian armed forces smuggled heroin out of Afghanistan when they held it, and the Americans did it in Vietnam.

That aside, my larger point is that the militarization of the war on drugs doesn't work. It has failed utterly, in every way. Fighting heroin in Afghanistan with these same tactics is doomed.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't disagree, I think this is an interesting issue indeed, I thought there might be some good views.

I bring up Columbia because its government's alliance with the Americans has cost it huge standing in its region, and the guerrilla war has cost thousands of lives. Many places in the country are literally ran by drug lords. American military technology and training is used to fight them, but they can easily adapt new trade routes and methods. The Columbian government has seized "homemade" submarines full of coke from jungle camps. For all the lives, money, man hours and vitriolic rhetoric fighting cocaine in Columbia, it has been almost entirely a failure.

As sym pointed out, they have the advantage of being able to subject another nation to these hardships rather than their own, nor are Iran or America's own drug trade issues being addressed. Not to sound conspiratorial or anything, but the Russian armed forces smuggled heroin out of Afghanistan when they held it, and the Americans did it in Vietnam.

That aside, my larger point is that the militarization of the war on drugs doesn't work. It has failed utterly, in every way. Fighting heroin in Afghanistan with these same tactics is doomed.
Colombia, man, Colombia.

Anyway, I don't have a very well-formed opinion on the American involvement in that country. I know all we hear about it on TV is how the FARC takes hostages every day, drug mules are flown in from Bogota, etc. And I in general am not very supportive of American interventionism, but after Uribe took power in Colombia (running his candidacy on a solid militant position on the war on drugs) things have not taken a turn for the worse and in fact, some may argue, they have even taken a decisive turn for the better. The crime rate has reduced dramatically, particularly stuff like FARC kidnappings and homicides also if I am not mistaken the number of people enlisted in the FARC has been cut in like half (the FARC, of course besides being a militant Marxist organization, is one of the biggest names in Colombian drug trafficking) , economic growth has improved considerably, in part due to the further development of the tourism industry under Uribe.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Colombia, man, Colombia.

Anyway, I don't have a very well-formed opinion on the American involvement in that country. I know all we hear about it on TV is how the FARC takes hostages every day, drug mules are flown in from Bogota, etc. And I in general am not very supportive of American interventionism, but after Uribe took power in Colombia (running his candidacy on a solid militant position on the war on drugs) things have not taken a turn for the worse and in fact, some may argue, they have even taken a decisive turn for the better. The crime rate has reduced dramatically, particularly stuff like FARC kidnappings and homicides also if I am not mistaken the number of people enlisted in the FARC has been cut in like half (the FARC, of course besides being a militant Marxist organization, is one of the biggest names in Colombian drug trafficking) , economic growth has improved considerably, in part due to the further development of the tourism industry under Uribe.

you could be correct about the domestic issues, I am honestly ignorant of that. However, this doesn't change the fact that columbia is still one of the world's top cocaine exporters, the Derrian gap is controlled almost if not entirely by the cartels, and the smuggling that has been stopped in Columbia has simply spilled over, and threatens the stabilty of other nations in the region. The current near civil war in the slums of rio de janerio are proof of this in some regard.

Originally posted by inimalist
you could be correct about the domestic issues, I am honestly ignorant of that. However, this doesn't change the fact that columbia is still one of the world's top cocaine exporters, the Derrian gap is controlled almost if not entirely by the cartels, and the smuggling that has been stopped in Columbia has simply spilled over, and threatens the stabilty of other nations in the region. The current near civil war in the slums of rio de janerio are proof of this in some regard.
Why do you so vehemently refuse to spell it right? Colombia. You're killing me.

And anyway, yeah, I think warring on drugs in general has a lot of downsides and drugs should become legalized. In my previous post I guess I was mostly talking of the upside of warring on the FARC (of which drug trafficking is one of the many aspects).

Originally posted by backdoorman
Why do you so vehemently refuse to spell it right? Colombia. You're killing me.

He's Canadian and thus probably thinking of British Columbia.

its the spell check... I'm actually a terrible speller.

but ya, the Canada thing