Reply to US blows up boat said to be carrying drugs

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "US blows up boat said to be carrying drugs"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I prefer living in a world where drug runners are hunted relentlessly.

I don’t miss the old world where our country “managed” the drug problem by tolerating it and training us all to accept it as a given and just part of a city’s “urban charm.”  Poor enforcement is essentially a subsidy, and we know that whenever we subsidize something then we get more of that thing.

Glad we are attaching a horrific cost to drug running.  These people should live in abject terror.  Kill them all. [/quote]

What is your definition of a "drug runner"? does it include people at every end of the chain, down to a 10 year old lookout at the corner? How about the suburban teenager who has addiction and sells some fentanyl to cover the price of the fentanyl they're taking? What about the UMC investor who snorts lines of coke at parties? After all, you don't have a drug enterprise without customers. In the US cities with the highest percentage of cocaine use, more than a fifth of adults have used cocaine. You think some impoverished guy in Venezuela held a gun to their head? By the way, drugs or no drugs, more people in the US still die from alcohol related causes as from illicit drugs. (178k per CDC, and this does NOT include alcohol-related accidents, just booze alone).

Maybe we should go all in on Islamic prohibition and just execute users while we're at it. After all, if extrajudicial killing is a good answer, wouldn't it be even better if we extended it to users?

Phoenix, Arizona (23.3% of the population has used cocaine)
Mesa, Arizona (22.5%)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (22%)
Tulsa, Oklahoma (21.8%)
Omaha, Nebraska (22.2%)
Las Vegas, Nevada (21.9%)
Wichita, Kansas (21.8%)
Fresno, California (21.8%)
Tucson, Arizona (21.8%)
Colorado Springs, Colorado (21.8%)[/quote]

I guess I see a distinction here. If you are a foreign criminal involved in moving drugs into the United States then you are fair game for the United States military. The US is bound to provide for the common defense. That kind of force should be used correctly and there should be consequences for screw ups.

Once the drugs are here, the approach shifts to a mix of law enforcement and public health approaches.  American citizens are afforded privileges that others lack.

People in the US illegally who are convicted of drug charges should be deported and have no reasonable expectation of ever returning to this country. [/quote]

There is a consensus that these drugs aren't even directed to the US, but to Europe. So, is this part of our NATO agreement or something? 
There used to be rules for military engagement. There used to be a modicum of recognition that Congress declares war and has oversight regarding military responses short of a declared war. It took an act of Congress to target 9/11 related terrorism in the absence of a war declaration.

You're simply forgetting that we have a legal framework, starting with the Constitution, for what we do. And Trump is acting outside that framework.

It's really a simple question: Do you prefer a government that carries out its actions in accordance with the law, or acts unlawfully? That pretty much covers the core controversy over Trumpism. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics