Macri On Cnn With Video

[thorsten]

traffic (verb) - to deal or trade in something illegal or forbidden.

Really, how are they different? You try to stop trafficking exactly because of a prohibition that it is in place. If there is no prohibition, there is no trafficking. To defeat trafficking is to enforce prohibition. It is to prevent the commerce of something you outlawed.
BTW, how are Europe's efforts to "defeat drug trafficking" going? Is heroin or ecstasy any hard to find in Germany these days?

So you realize that if there's no prohibition, there's no trafficking but somehow prohibition is not a possible strategy to 'defeat drug trafficking'? This is not all too logical... He never mentioned "how" he wants to tackle the problem, just that it is a problem in his priorities, so if you don't have any detailed information about the planned strategy, you should refrain from assuming what other people think.

 

[EJLarson]

I honestly did not expect Macri to legalize drugs. But I was appalled and dismayed that he made the war on drugs one of his top priorities.

I just watched the video again. His exact words were "defeat drug trafficking," as one of his top priorities. Do you have additional information from other sources as to what the exact meaning of those words were? I cannot imagine how anyone could parse that phrase as meaning "US-style war on drugs, including users." He just didn't say that. Why are you so sure that's what he means?

 

[ElQueso]

The overwhelming problem that Argentina faces related to drugs is the level to which the corruption reached into the government, police, etc. As a libertarian, I think it's incredibly stupid to have a prohibition on anything considering that humans will find a way to get what they want; but governments don't worry about human motivation, they worry about enforcing what those in power think is "right" with little or no motivation factors considered. If it wasn't like that, I wouldn't be worried about governments to begin with.

If we have to have government, though, I can understand at least clearing the corruption of the drug trafficking out of the government and securing the borders against open planes flying into the country to deliver drugs for transshipment to other countries at the very least.

And for a country that is in prohibition, Argentina is pretty liberal with marijuana use:

Por decisión de la Corte Suprema], la tenencia de marihuana para consumo personal ya no será penalizada en Argentina. El máximo tribunal del país resolvió que la posesión de pequeñas cantidades de cannabis, que sean para uso individual y no representen riesgos para terceros, no tendrá carácter de delito.

Para fundamentar la decisión, los magistrados entendieron que este tipo de tenencia queda en la órbita de la intimidad del individuo, respaldada por el artículo 19 de la Constitución (”Las acciones privadas de los hombres que de ningún modo ofendan al orden y a la moral pública, ni perjudiquen a un tercero, están sólo reservadas a Dios, y exentas de la autoridad de los magistrados”), y como tal no puede ser castigada.

So there is indeed, as someone above mentioned, a difference between prohibition and illegal narco trade. I think Macri is trying to get rid of the influence and corruption of the drug cartels, not enter into prohibition itself. If he is trying to enforce a prohibition, well, he can't according to legal precedent and I would be very much against that as well.

Prohibiting the use of marijuana is as stupid as prohibiting the use of alcohol, considering it is actually less harmful than alcohol (we use alcohol to kill biotic elements for crissake! I have a friend who had cancer and swears that taking marijuana oil helped cure him when the doctors couldn't get rid of it!).

As to what governments should do about drugs: People will find a way to do what they want to do. Prohibiting the use of any drug is tyranny against the individual unless that individual's direct actions are affecting third parties. Let people do what they want until they hurt someone else with their actions, and then act on that. Governments cannot legislate happiness and they shouldn't be able to force others to be happy either. It's up to individuals and their families and friends to deal with unhappiness and the desire to escape from reality and no government program is going to alleviate such feelings. In fact, I'd say the worst entity to turn to in order to resolve any personal problem via "programs" would be just about any government.

But again, allowing corruption and influence from anyone or any organization into the government itself, is something that should be stopped as completely as possible if we are going to have governments.

 

[camberiu]

I just watched the video again. His exact words were "defeat drug trafficking," as one of his top priorities. Do you have additional information from other sources as to what the exact meaning of those words were? I cannot imagine how anyone could parse that phrase as meaning "US-style war on drugs, including users." He just didn't say that. Why are you so sure that's what he means?

Argentine President Authorizes Shooting Down of Drug Flights

 

[camberiu]

So you realize that if there's no prohibition, there's no trafficking but somehow prohibition is not a possible strategy to 'defeat drug trafficking'?

Yes, shutting down drugs flights, which is the summary execution of the crew and passengers, seems in line with somehow ending prohibition.......

 

[Noesdeayer]

No military action has been taken on this decree as yet.
It could be annuled in the future as it is clearly overreach.As well as,I would say,a lot of "shock and awe"
Don't forget when you have ifo as to the drug problem being treated as a social issue .
Please SHARE IT. along with the red alerts.

 

[EJLarson]

Argentine President Authorizes Shooting Down of Drug Flights

We can agree that this would be a very wrongheaded move. But it doesn't touch on my question to you: what in his words or actions makes you think he's going after users? So far everything, including the above, indicates action against dealers.

And as ElQueso eloquently explains above, official corruption resulting from the money in trafficking cannot be ignored.

Not that it matters in this discussion, but I too, believe in libertarian principles and would favor decriminalizing drugs for adults, and trying to protect children as best we can.

 

[camberiu]

But again, allowing corruption and influence from anyone or any organization into the government itself, is something that should be stopped as completely as possible if we are going to have governments.

The ONLY way to do that is decriminalization and stopping to deal with the drug problem as a law enforcement issue. As long as it remains prohibited, the entities charged with the prohibition will be temped by corruption.

A woman was arrested for possession and delivery of 31.5 grams of cocaine, 126 grams of high-grade marijuana, 29 tablets of Ecstasy, an undisclosed amount of methamphetamine and 60 hits of LSD. She is also the 19-year-old daughter of a United States DEA Special Agent.

 

[camberiu]

We can agree that this would be a very wrongheaded move. But it doesn't touch on my question to you: what in his words or actions makes you think he's going after users? So far everything, including the above, indicates action against dealers.

It means that he will enforce prohibition, with swift deadly force if necessary. Which means he is turning it into a war (literally), which as the rest of the world can attest, it does not work.

Is he going against the end users? I don;t know, and honestly, it does not matter. Combat trafficking (with military assets) is his #2 priority. It is a losing proposition that Argentina today can ill afford. As I said before, invading the Malvinas again has a higher chance of success.

 

[EJLarson]

Is he going against the end users? I don;t know, and honestly, it does not matter.

It doesn't matter? I can only assume you snapped that off as a quick answer without a lot of thought.

I will leave it to you and the others here to determine the practical consequences of a government's drug-combating program that includes or leaves out the users.

That was not your smartest comment.