A few years back President Felipe Calderón signed into law a bill that legalized small amounts of narcotics. The story flew under the radar due to the swine-flu panic coming from Mexico.
Mexico's New Drug Law May Set an Example
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/articl...
Mexico's New Drug Law May Set an Example
Hello Ted. The War on Drugs is over and Drugs won. It is time to do what is common sence as in the repeal of prohibition. Legalize it-Tax it heavily-educate the populace. The State of Colorodo is doing just that as we speak and paying down immense debt. I am not advocating drug use but people no matter what are going to use them. Better to take the funds out of the narco-terrorists and put in ours. Yes, more bureucracy but the national debt will fall like a brick thrown out of a 747 at 10,000 feet. The revenue alone, will fund education and treatment facilities for drug users.
To me legalization with taxation is the only alternative.
Interesting Jim, it seems the best way to handle this issue is to allow each state to maintain their own laws. This way, some states can choose to legalize and others not. This way people have a choice.
Hello LD: You mean making it like the imposition of the death penalty? You can legally execute people in some states while not in others?
Essentially, yes. Like many other controversial issues, there are good arguments on both sides, and you'll never please everyone as long as the Gov't makes a "one size fits all rule."
The individual State solution would be the answer to that. Allow each State to choose to do what they will. We than can compare the results and change accordingly. While still giving people an out who wish to disagree. We already do this with a number of other issues.
This was the original intent of the Constitution. If the power is not stated within it's text (which in this case, it is not) it is than thereby left to the States to regulate, per the 10th Amendment.
You seem very learned on many matters here, LD. Now, don't get me wrong, but didn't we try this States Rights thing 1860-1864? To my mind, even being a white southern boy, we need Federal oversight in many areas. To name just a couple here: if left up to the States, do you think for an instant States such as Kentucky and North Carolina would impose warning labels on packs of cigarettes much less restrict their sale to minors such that we might unashamedly put nicotine in our bodies? Which state do you think would have abolished segregation first...Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama? The answer is obvious. WE need the Federal Government. No, the system ain't perfect and my political idealism died long ago with the defeat of George McGovern for President.
I have become a pragmatist when it comes to politcs and the role of the Federal Gov't versus State Gov't, i.e. We, the US, are a TWO PARTY system. Not two and half or three. That's the reality of it. Course there are the Independents which both parties "need" but in the end one must pick one or vote their conscience which will not put their choice in power. I unequivically choose the Democratic Party. Is it perfect? Absolutely not but it beats the hell out of the locked into the goose step marching Republican Right. So...pick one.
You asked me on another blog who I was voting for before the blog got off on another tangent. Well, without any hesitancy at all I am voting for the Democratic Ticket headed by Barrack Obama. And....we are going to win..again.
Also, I noticed you have not thrown any elbows at anyone yet. Very commendable. However, if you do, I would hope that you would identify yourself by filling in your profile.
Thank you Jim, I try to remain cordial, and respect to other’s opinions. I feel that's the only way you can have a constructive discussion. Once people start throwing the word "racism" (just using one example) around, the conversation has ended. Then it becomes a waste of everyone's time. Do you understand what I mean?
To your question of "States Rights thing 1860-1864," during those years we were two separate countries. You are correct though; the sovereignty of States’ rights was a main factor. But, (to use your words) the issue is more than a “thing,” in fact, it’s a very strong foundation that our founders believed in. In a nut shell, the SOLE purpose was to decentralize power. Our founders just fought a war against a Government that had central power over everyone. It would have been a waste of Soldiers lives to just go back to that same mentality. Rather they understood that by giving States’ equal but separate powers, than we could (hopefully) keep from having another King.
But, I would like to clarify. Just because I advocate for States' rights does not mean I do in every situation. I only draw my interpretation from the Constitution, which states with the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people."
Thus saying, if it is not within the text of the Constitution as a power of the Federal Government, than it's, by default, left up to the States.
I don't choose that by any bias, it's simply the law. Now, whether or not is adhered is another story.
There are many incidences where (as you said) we need the federal government. We just need to understand when that is AND is not; then be consistent.
".... I am voting for the Democratic Ticket headed by Barrack Obama. And....we are going to win..again."
Well, Jimmy....I wish you wouldn't BRAG about it....
:)...OK Sebe. Too soon for me to get all puffed up and cocky. Anything can happen before the second Tuesday in November. I will try to tone it down a notch or two.
...as you know, I can't imagine a scenario where he loses, either. And the more I see and hear from the Republican "contenders," the better the incumbent looks - and that's considering EVERYTHING done/planned by the current administration that I disagree with.
It's too bad the opposition can't put up a candidate who has:
*The "America First" commitments of a Patrick J. Buchanan
*The charisma, likeability, and communication skills of a Ronald W. Reagan
*The dogged determination and common sense of a Harry S. Truman
*The inspirational leadership of a Franklin Delano Roosevelt
and (believe it or not):
*The foreign policy wits and intuitiveness of a Richard Milhous Nixon
Now THAT would be a candidate I could support.
(It's too bad Hillary decided not to oppose him this time around......NAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...I couldn't vote for her because that would defacto put Bill Clinton back into the White House....)
Spoken like a true Independent, Sebe. But watch out about that last sentence...Murr will not like it.
Jimmy: When have I ever worried about whether somebody "liked it?"
I may be following my New Year's resolution of trying to disagree without being disagreeable - as well as trying to make converts in that regard - but you can still call the kettle black without calling it a stinking, rotten, no-good, worthless, MFing black kettle that was the legally fatherless, male offspring of a female dog (or the female dog itself).
...and in a related story - under the category of "Believe It Or Not" - the results of a recent Harris Poll are in. Not surprisingly (to most of us), President Ronald W. Reagan has been voted to be "the best president in modern times." Surprisingly (at least to me), Reagan finished "well ahead" of both Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.
The main reasons? According to the Newsmax.com analysis, there were two. At
the time of Reagan's election in 1980:
1. " On the economic front, the nation was in the doldrums after four years of the Jimmy Carter presidency. Inflation stood around 12.5 percent, unemployment was 7.5 percent, and the top tax rate was 70 percent.
Reagan implemented free market policies that came to be known as Reaganomics — drastically reducing taxes on income and capital gains, cutting spending on many federal programs, and deregulating the economy.
The result: the largest economic boom in U.S. history.
Reagan’s policies created more than 16 million new jobs, and the GDP grew at an annual rate of 3.85 percent a year. By the time Reagan left office, inflation had plunged to just 4.4 percent, and unemployment had dropped to 5.4 percent."
2. "The nation was heavily embroiled in the Cold War. The Soviets had invaded Afghanistan a year earlier. Until the day of Reagan’s inauguration, Iran had held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Reagan...stood up to the Soviet Union, branding it “an evil empire” in a March 1983 speech. He ordered a massive buildup of American armed forces, and introduced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) — later dubbed “Star Wars” — to protect the United States from nuclear ballistic missiles launched by the U.S.S.R.
He also boosted aid to anti-communist resistance movements, including the Mujaheddin battling Soviet troops in Afghanistan, and freed the island nation of Grenada from a Marxist government supported by troops from the Soviets’ North American ally, Fidel Castro’s Cuba.
In 1987, Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall and challenged Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!” Two years later, the Wall came down, and the Cold War was declared over."
So Reagan - and this nation - were able to survive both Jimmy Carter AND the Soviet Union.
IMHO - that's a legacy that's WORTHY of being voted #1.
I have always been skepctical of polls about President's rankings. The historian's rankings, manly.
It all seems rather subjective, don't you think?
By what metric does one measure a President to do a "good job" or a "bad job?"
What is considered the "standard?"
Sebe, I know you do not worry about somebody "liking' you or not. I was just making a lame attempt at humor reference your comment and Brother Bill's "influence" on Hilary amd the sexist implications one may or may not might find in reading it.
I, on the other hand, am finding it difficult to keep up with all of LD's blogs, Dawns Prophecies, along with trying to keep current with everyone else and what they have to say. I think I need a nap.
My phone and internet service has been out since Tuesday. I’m glad Comcast finally fixed the problem that has been affecting a few of my neighbors.
Ronald Reagan deserves to be recognized as our nation’s top president. He was pro military and took part in the production of nearly four hundred military training films. When I first entered tech school in 1983 his sex education clipped was still being used by the military.
The main reason I’m a fan of Reagan he restored pride and hope to the American people.
Reaganomics is the result of the Kemp Roth tax cut that turned things around resulting in decades of economic prosperity
"Sebe, I know you do not worry about somebody "liking' you or not. I was just making a lame attempt at humor reference your comment and Brother Bill's "influence" on Hilary amd the sexist implications one may or may not might find in reading it."
I know, I know....I was just tweaking you...
"I have always been skepctical of polls about President's rankings. The historian's rankings, manly.
It all seems rather subjective, don't you think?"
OF COURSE - all polls are - as are Presidential elections (all elections, really). WE THE PEOPLE get subjective every time we vote somebody in or out of office. But the point is - regardless - this poll reflect the people's "vote" on the "best" President of the past century.
Some of the people who voted might not have even been alive when Reagan first took office, so they certainly had no first-hand knowledge of Kennedy or FDR's presidencies. I remember the exact same poll when Reagan was president. The "best" was FDR, followed by Kennedy. Reagan was down the list.
But the polls serve a purpose - just like elections do. The show - based on whatever - what the current sentiment of those polled is on a particular topic.
My prediction is that Reagan's favorable poll rating will only increase as time passes. After all, when you look at the economic turnaround and the fall of the Soviet Union, it will require any future President to overcome some SUBSTANTIAL obstacles to measure up to Reagan's "legacy."
One thing I remember about the time Reagan was in the WH: the discourse in Washington, DC was one where they may have disagreed but they actually tried not to be disagreeable.
The people who represent us there now could learn a lot from that example.
*I hate Comcast.
*"The main reason I’m a fan of Reagan he restored pride and hope to the American people."
And let's not forget WHY pride and hope HAD to be restored to the American people: Four Years Of Jimmy Carter.
I lived through those years, and they were gloom and doom for sure. One thing I still vividly remember during Reagan's first inauguration was a comment of a MAINSTREAM media newscaster (this was before cable news and all the bashing that goes on now) making a comment to the effect:
"Usually when an incumbent president is voted out of office, you can say the voters gently ushered him out the door. In the case of Carter, the voters said "Get Out!"
I couldn't believe that whoever said that on television, but I agreed with the comment 100%.
Hi sebekm, There is a new President Reagan Video.
1I believe its time for America to take a serious look at the decriminalization of marijuana. The founding fathers felt it was every American patriotic duty to grow hemp for our textile industry.
Countries south of the border are talking about legalization!!
Hi Jimmy Mack
I was a regular panelist on a weekly radio show on WTLD The Lord’s Day radio 90.5 FM from 2009-2011. Gospel Christian & Contemporary radio station out of Jesup Ga. services 20,000 listeners.
The name of the show was titled, “The Great Season”, where I was a firm advocate for legalization of marijuana and other progressive ideas,and political hot topics.
The criminal justice systems, lawyers and others are actually funded by the illegal drug trade. The war on drugs has been a plague upon the black community in particular. . How many grandmothers have put up their homes trying to save their grandsons from prison? They took away the equity of black families which they had established since the civil war for example. Property ownership!!!
Correcto mundo, Dr. Ted. One of the most egregious injustices inflicted upon the dispensation of 'jutice' is the disproportionality of drug sentencing when it comes to Crack Cocaine and Powder Cocaine. Walking a fine line here...the penalties thrust upon users of Crack are greatly more punitive to the user of powder cocaine with the amounts of the drug being identical. All this 'drug enforcement' has led to the voting disenfranchisement of many times more for the people of color than the white users. Felonious penalities of say a person holding crack are not the same for a person holding cocaine in its powdered form. A gram of Crack gets you 3-5 under a felony while a gram of powdered coke may get you a misdeanor and or release under a first offender clause.
The racial overtones of this policy are very clear. (Please see Leonard Pitts circa Feb. 2001 Miami Herald.) The Uncounted Chad.