In response to:

Scaring the Ghost of El Chapo

PluckyMo Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 10:56 AM
Just as I am expected to keep my small children away from alcohol and tobacco products, I would be expected to keep my children away from legalized or decriminalized marijuana. Currently, to go to the mall I must walk through a cloud of tobacco smoke at the entrance that is a result of smoking being banned *in* the mall. As a result, I rarely go to the mall because I have no desire to smoke, especially not second hand, and I never take my children. If marijuana were decriminizalied, that smoke would include marijuana also. How could any one in good conscience then take a minor to a public place that allows smoking? Doing so nearly guarantees exposure....
PluckyMo Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 11:06 AM
(cont)...This situation is just one of many that I have never heard advocates of decriminalization or legalization address. I agree that the status quo, frequently referred to as the "War on Drugs", is not having the outcomes we would like to see. I would happily participate in a discussion of alternatives. However, free access to these substances is not the answer.
MatthewlovesAyn Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 6:10 PM
Did you read the article? You've seen the consequences of drug prohibition, although that's insufficient argument. The fact remains, it's not your place to dictate what I eat, drink, shoot, snort, smoke, or rub into my belly.
PluckyMo Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 11:01 AM
(cont)....This scenario is just one of many situations that I have never heard those who advocate decriminalization or legalization address. I agree that the status quo, frequently referred to as the "War on Drugs", is inadequate. But I have yet to hear a suggestion from someone who differs with me that has a chance of truly improving things.
McGuffin Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 11:08 AM
Expected by whom? I don't think you quite understand the concepts of liberty and personal choice.
PluckyMo Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 12:23 PM
Expected by society as a whole and by CPS, who will take my children (both under 10) away if I am even accused of giving them alcohol or a cigarette. It would be considered child endangerment. I have a thorough understandng of the concepts of liberty and personal choice. That is one of the reasons I simply choose not to shop at the mall I mentioned above rather than suing them for violating my "right" to shop there in comfort. I also understand that both concepts are accompanied by the responsibiity to make sure that my personal choices do not infringe upon the liberties of others. In fact, I must attend to my responsibilities before I worry about enjoying my liberties, reversing those two choices results in hedonism.
SMyles Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 12:52 PM
Wha.....Huh? Sue them? Unreal.
SMyles Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 12:54 PM
McGuffin Wrote: Feb 25, 2013 3:26 PM
You have no right to use any one else's private property.

No, you have no concept of liberty and personal choice.
SolofTexas Wrote: Feb 26, 2013 9:11 PM
McG --

" ... violating my "right" to shop there in comfort". This says it all.

The author appears to be a "do-gooder" and nosey-busybody-totalitarian by any other name.

El Chapo haunts the streets of Chicago. His ghost hoards cash in Los Angeles stash houses. His shadow darkens underground tunnels between Mexico and the U.S. His spirit drives his clan to bloodshed. The world’s most-wanted kingpin may be dead. But the Sinaloa cartel will thrive until America legalizes drugs.

Guatemalan authorities are currently investigating whether Joaquín Guzmán (nicknamed El Chapo) was killed in a gunfight near Mexico’s border in a remote jungle-ranch province known as Peten.

El Chapo is an entrepreneurial criminal. ‘Entrepreneurial’ because he takes risks and acclimates to overcome obstacles. ‘Criminal’ because he does not compete on...