>> ^curiousity:

>> ^MaxWilder:
^ The proper course to take is full LEGALIZATION.
Regulated, but fully legal sale and possession of all drugs is the only way to break the back of these cartels. It will also solve the prison overcrowding issue and provide a nice tax income for local governments who are currently being squeezed to death.
Anybody who is still against the legalization of recreational drugs is simply ignorant or idiotic.

Hear hear, but I do have an issue with saying that anyone against legalization is ignorant or idiotic. Although this rhetoric is very common these days, it simply kills conversation that might occur with people who are open to discussing different sides of this issue.
Of the people that I feel may change their mind or at least be truly open, I have most often run into an emotional argument against full legalization. This emotional argument is usually based on personally knowing someone brought low by drugs or fear of what would happen. For someone having a loved one/associate/etc who was hurt by drugs, you can sympathize with them and bring up the point that legalization will open the doors for support services and remove some social stigma from seeking help before they hit bottom or kill themselves (accident or purposefully.) The general fears can be talked out and likened to other things in life which are fearful... because really this is the fear of the unknown. The Netherlands has lower adult and teen marijuana use despite its lax laws on it, and if I remember correctly, one of officials made the comment about this stat, "We have succeeded in making marijuana boring." It's a standard of desire, things forbidden are simply tantalizing.


That's pretty much what I mean by ignorant. It's not meant as an insult, just a lack of knowledge. They don't know the truth about how people react to substances being legal or illegal. Legalization will allow addicts to more easily admit they have a problem and seek help. Legalization will make substances less attractive to people who are turned on by flaunting the law.

Of course there are also idiots who have heard all of this and still think drugs should be illegal because "they are dangerous." For them it is fully intended to be an insult.

>> ^MaxWilder:

^ The proper course to take is full LEGALIZATION.
Regulated, but fully legal sale and possession of all drugs is the only way to break the back of these cartels. It will also solve the prison overcrowding issue and provide a nice tax income for local governments who are currently being squeezed to death.
Anybody who is still against the legalization of recreational drugs is simply ignorant or idiotic.


Hear hear, but I do have an issue with saying that anyone against legalization is ignorant or idiotic. Although this rhetoric is very common these days, it simply kills conversation that might occur with people who are open to discussing different sides of this issue.

Of the people that I feel may change their mind or at least be truly open, I have most often run into an emotional argument against full legalization. This emotional argument is usually based on personally knowing someone brought low by drugs or fear of what would happen. For someone having a loved one/associate/etc who was hurt by drugs, you can sympathize with them and bring up the point that legalization will open the doors for support services and remove some social stigma from seeking help before they hit bottom or kill themselves (accident or purposefully.) The general fears can be talked out and likened to other things in life which are fearful... because really this is the fear of the unknown. The Netherlands has lower adult and teen marijuana use despite its lax laws on it, and if I remember correctly, one of officials made the comment about this stat, "We have succeeded in making marijuana boring." It's a standard of desire, things forbidden are simply tantalizing.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^Fusionaut:

How to end the drug war and take power away from organized crime: decriminalize drugs.


No. Decriminalization of drugs will have very little affect on organized crime.

Decriminalization is simply moving the common citizen's punishment from being caught using illegal drugs from criminal to civil - it does nothing about the supply chain for these drugs. In many cases, criminal punishment will still exist for anyone falling under the growing/producing, selling, or transporting category.

But decriminalization isn't completely ineffectual; it will dramatically raise the quality of life of users and provide an official avenue for addicts to get help before hitting rock bottom (although it may just open up the avenue for people/organizations to step into rather than actively providing.)

To disrupt the organized crimes' profit from illegal drugs, you have to provide other sources of these drugs. Pure and simply, this is supply and demand. There will always be some demand.

>> ^entr0py:
Oh. . . so the allegation is that the ATF was holding back in taking down petty gun runners so they could gather evidence to take down the entire organization. The same sort of tactic that the FBI often employs in fighting organized crime within the US.
I get sick of these deceptive video titles. Obviously there's a huge difference between committing a crime and failing to stop it. I was all set to rage against the ATF, now what?


"ATF claims to hate 'beaners and spics'"

Your video, CBS News: US ATF Secretly Arming Mexican Drug Cartels, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^entr0py:

Oh. . . so the allegation is that the ATF was holding back in taking down petty gun runners so they could gather evidence to take down the entire organization. The same sort of tactic that the FBI often employs in fighting organized crime within the US.
I get sick of these deceptive video titles. Obviously there's a huge difference between committing a crime and failing to stop it. I was all set to rage against the ATF, now what?


The ATF SHOULD have confiscated these guns. It is their job. Human beings died! Human! *Expletive!* Beings! (And no, it does not matter if they are drugrunners or whatever, they are HUMAN BEINGS!)

There is the picture of one American at the end who died... but Mexicans are people too, sound strange, I know. Where there was the one picture of one American there should also have been the epicture of every single lowlife, innocent bystander, drug runner and junkie next to the one American. Because all of those lifes which should have gone on, ideally in prison for the criminals and happily alive for the innocents, are now no more!

>> ^entr0py:

Oh. . . so the allegation is that the ATF was holding back in taking down petty gun runners so they could gather evidence to take down the entire organization. The same sort of tactic that the FBI often employs in fighting organized crime within the US.


No, that's not the allegation, that's just the excuse the ATF are using now it's public.

If that had been their actual intention they would have been working with Mexican officials to track the guns once they crossed the border, then arresting those in possesion of the guns, and making cases against them.

As stated in the video "It was all kept secret from Mexico".

(Taken from Liveleak)
Serene Branson - did she suffer a stroke?

"Well, a very heavy burtation tonight," she said, smiling broadly. But her smile More.. disappeared as her speech devolved into a series of incomprehensible utterances.

To be clear, it's not immediately known what happened to Branson and calls to the station where she works went unanswered at presstime. But a neurologist who watched Branson's episode offered several possible explanations as to what happened to her.

"Stroke is the number one possibility," Dr. John Krakauer, associate professor of neurology and neuroscience at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, told CBS News. Other possibilities, he said, include a transient ischemic attack - a sort of "mini-stroke" that produces no lasting problems - a migraine headache, or a seizure.

>> ^gwiz665:

Restoring sanity and/or fear:
A crowd size estimate commissioned by CBS News and carried out by AirPhotosLive.com estimated the crowd at 215,000 people, plus or minus 10%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear#Cr
owd_size
Restoring Honor:
Anywhere from 80k - 1,6 mil (Seriously doubt that last part)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally#Crowd_size


Fun fact, the United States Parks Department still uses aerial photography analyzed by scientists to estimate the size of crowds at rallys in DC for their own planning purposes. But ever since they estimated the Million Man March at 400k people, they have been legally prohibited by congress from releasing their estimates to the public.

The CBS news commissioned AirPhotos Live surveys are the only publicly available scientific estimates using the same methodology used by the US Parks Department. If you're going to compare two accounts, compare their estimate of Restoring Honor, 87k, to their estimate of The Rally to Restore Sanity, 215k.

I do find it amusing that the best figure for The Rally to Restore Sanity is also the highest one you will ever hear in the media, and the best figure for Restoring Honor is the lowest you will ever hear in the media. The far right might not be better at turning out people, but they beat the hell out of us when it comes to manipulating perception.

Restoring sanity and/or fear:
A crowd size estimate commissioned by CBS News and carried out by AirPhotosLive.com estimated the crowd at 215,000 people, plus or minus 10%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear#Crowd_size

Restoring Honor:
Anywhere from 80k - 1,6 mil (Seriously doubt that last part)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally#Crowd_size

"CBS News reported that AirPhotosLive estimated 87,000 attended, with a margin of error of 9,000. CBS commissioned the AirPhotosLive.com company to calculate an independent estimate, and said this was the only scientific estimate made of the number of people at the rally.[98] CNN contacted AirPhotosLive about the estimate and were told they had three experts use their own methodologies to estimate the size of the crowd.[99] AirPhotosLive had their image analysts, and Stephen Doig, a professor at Arizona State University who specializes in quantitative research methods, and crowd estimate expert, use the same images to conduct separate estimates. By laying grids over the high-resolution images and counting the density per unit of each grid cell, Doig calculated the crowd size to be 80,000, while an AirPhotosLive analyst arrived at 87,000; a statistically insignificant difference within the margin of error. CBS elected to use the higher figure.[98][79][100]"

That sounds believable - I'd even give them the benefit of the doubt and round up to 100,000.

here's interview w/ the guy and his current employer


Watch CBS News Videos Online

The figures I mention in my post is from CBS news site today... I don't know what the actual bill says...

With Obama, the material seems to be thought provoking and deep. Here's a few from GWB. That's right boys and girls, this is how a CONSERVATIVE President talks:

"One of my conserns is that the health care not be as good as it can possibly be." --On benefits provided to military personnal, Tipp City, Ohio, April 19, 2007.

"I want everybody to hear loud and clear that I'm going to be the president of everybody." --Washington D.C., January 18, 2001.

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --Interview with CBS News, Washingon, D.C., September 6, 2006.

"Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir, I talk to families who die." --Speaking to reporters on facing the challenges of war, Washington, D.C., December 7, 2006.

"If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon, the could proliferate." --Washington, D.C., March 21, 2006.

Yes, got to love the Bush talking points back in the day. When one really had to back up, and rethink what the idiot said. Funny how Fox News does not talk about 'No Child Left Behind"; like they rather that conservative act be forgotten as soon as possible.

Btw, the quotes do come from Mr. George W. Bush, but found them in the book "The Ultimate George W. Bushisms" by Jacob Weisberg.

I don't support torture. Find somewhere on the sift that I said I support torture, and I'll shut up.

I also JUST said that I think any idiot can see that FOX is extremely supportive of the republican party. But, all other media stations have a (much more subtle, but undeniable) liberal bias.

I'm not giving any opinions here. These are facts.

(What "sins" are you talking about, pray tell?)


>> ^rougy:
>> ^deedub81:
By the way, I won't argue with you, rougy because you're absolutely right. But don't forget that CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and the New York Times are the Democratic Party's propaganda outlets..
You have no fucking clue.
You don't have the synapses to tell up from down unless somebody was standing there giving you hints.
You know, deedub, we might actually like each other in real life, but you just don't get it.
Innocent people were tortured - yes tortured - and you supported that.
What did that make us, deedub? You and me, the Americans?
It's not a laughing matter, and your claim above...that basically every mainstream "news" source other than FOX NEWS is a liberal propaganda machine....
You are not paying attention, deedub.
You are lying to yourself and nothing that I say will sway you hither.