Colombian President Suggests Cocaine Should Be Legalized Like Whisky

[Patong2021]

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I say legalize everything, as long as all welfare programs are eliminated. 

 

Don't work, don't eat. 

 

No money for Narcan? See ya!

 Have you been in some US cities like Philadelphia where the zombies walk? Or rural towns in in West Virginia and Kentucky ravaged by Hillbilly Heroin? Druggies rob and steal and kill to get their fix.

[Emdog]

Have to repurpose "snifters" I reckon

Problems with coke are you think you're clever when you're not; that you have some idea worth listening to when it isn't; you can't stop til your supply is all up your nose & it's like each new snort is just enough to get you a bit up, but still below starting point... like going down stairs....

[frank83628]

23 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Cocaine is a deadly addictive drug. The people  laughing off the legalization are not prepared for the tens of thosuands of zombies  that would be created.

Turn reefer madness of, its 2025 not 1955.

[connda]

Sure, why not. 

[mrwebb8825]

On 2/7/2025 at 8:49 PM, phetphet said:

Cocaine, just like alcohol can be taken by many without getting addicted. But just like alcoholics, many succumb to addiction..

The problem I can see is, if they legalise cocaine, criminal gangs would have almost unfettered  access to the main ingredient for making crack, which is far more addictive and dangerous, and other such manufactured cocktails.

Then it could be sold like weed - Your very argument against it, looked at from another angle is an argument for it. It would eliminate the ILlegal tag which in turn, would eliminate the "Criminal" aspect, and by association, reduces "Crime" and generates revenue for the states.

Focus law enforcement on the crack only and they'll (the gangs) realize they don't need to make crack and can still make big bucks.

 

On Topic Only: He's the president. He doesn't need another country's permission to legalize it. Could turn it into a thriving tourist business opportunity. Much less messy than killing and kidnapping.

[Yellowtail]

13 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Then it could be sold like weed - Your very argument against it, looked at from another angle is an argument for it. It would eliminate the ILlegal tag which in turn, would eliminate the "Criminal" aspect, and by association, reduces "Crime" and generates revenue for the states.

Focus law enforcement on the crack only and they'll (the gangs) realize they don't need to make crack and can still make big bucks.

 

On Topic Only: He's the president. He doesn't need another country's permission to legalize it. Could turn it into a thriving tourist business opportunity. Much less messy than killing and kidnapping.

Legalizing murder would reduce crime as well. 

 

Should drug addicts get public assistance of any kind? 

[CanadaSam]

Ask the millions, yes, MILLIONS of alcohol addicted people if cocaine is worse.

 

ALL drugs should be legalized, taxed, so that quality is maintained, and gov't profits go to treatment centres.

[spidermike007]

I've been suggesting this for two decades. I suggest legalize all drugs, the allure disappears once drugs are legal, and chances are it would not only weaken the cartels, we would probably see drug use drop dramatically in just a short period of time. 

 

The "War on Drugs" has failed dramatically, and what is the definition of the continuation of something that has totally failed? 

[HappyExpat57]

I've done more than my fair share of both booze and coke. They're both damaging but coke is by far the worst of the two. NOT a good idea.

[placeholder]

On 2/8/2025 at 9:49 AM, phetphet said:

Cocaine, just like alcohol can be taken by many without getting addicted. But just like alcoholics, many succumb to addiction..

The problem I can see is, if they legalise cocaine, criminal gangs would have almost unfettered  access to the main ingredient for making crack, which is far more addictive and dangerous, and other such manufactured cocktails.

The most important difference between crack and standard cocaine is that it tended to be consumed by people with lower incomes. Which meant that they deserved harsher punishment.

 

"Crack, a smokable rock form of cocaine, became prevalent in the 1980s, especially among those of lower socioeconomic status (SES) as it was sold in small, cheap quantities (e.g. $5 or $10 compared to the usual $50 or $100 for powder cocaine) (2,3)."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5066573/#:~:text=Crack%2C a smokable rock form,) (2%2C3).

 

Cracks in the System: 20 Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law

A comprehensive examination of the 100-to-1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparity under which distribution of just 5 grams of crack carries a minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, while distribution of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same 5-year mandatory minimum sentence.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-federal-crack-cocaine-law

[Yellowtail]

13 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The most important difference between crack and standard cocaine is that it tended to be consumed by people with lower incomes. Which meant that they deserved harsher punishment.

 

"Crack, a smokable rock form of cocaine, became prevalent in the 1980s, especially among those of lower socioeconomic status (SES) as it was sold in small, cheap quantities (e.g. $5 or $10 compared to the usual $50 or $100 for powder cocaine) (2,3)."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5066573/#:~:text=Crack%2C a smokable rock form,) (2%2C3).

 

Cracks in the System: 20 Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law

A comprehensive examination of the 100-to-1 crack versus powder cocaine sentencing disparity under which distribution of just 5 grams of crack carries a minimum 5-year federal prison sentence, while distribution of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same 5-year mandatory minimum sentence.

https://www.aclu.org/documents/cracks-system-20-years-unjust-federal-crack-cocaine-law

 

No. The most important difference between crack and cocaine, it that crack is immediately addictive. One puff, and you want another immediately, one after another until you have no more, and then you desperately try to get more. 

 

90% of the people doing ordinary blow, were not involved in additional criminal activity to obtain it, while with crack. 90% of the users are involve in criminal activity to support their habits. 

 

Unlike blow, there is no such thing as a casual crack smoker. 

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

No. The most important difference between crack and cocaine, it that crack is immediately addictive. One puff, and you want another immediately, one after another until you have no more, and then you desperately try to get more. 

 

90% of the people doing ordinary blow, were not involved in additional criminal activity to obtain it, while with crack. 90% of the users are involve in criminal activity to support their habits. 

 

Unlike blow, there is no such thing as a casual crack smoker. 

 

Crack vs. powder cocaine: Were differences exaggerated?

During some of the bloodiest years of the drug wars of the 1980s, crack was seen as far more dangerous than powder cocaine, and that perception was written into the sentencing laws. But now that notion is under attack like never before.
Criminologists, doctors and other experts say the differences between the two forms of the drug were largely exaggerated and do not justify the way the law comes down 100 times harder on crack.

https://archive.ph/g0fIx#selection-1585.4-1585.59

 

. In the United States during the mid-1980s, for example,

crack cocaine was believed to be so powerfully addictive that even first-time users would
become addicted. Even more worrisome was the perception that the drug produced unpredictable
and deadly effects. Despite the fact that there was virtually no real evidence supporting these
claims, in 1986, the United States Congress passed the now infamous Anti-Drug Abuse Act
setting penalties 100 times harsher for crack than for powder cocaine convictions. 

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/43c2d274-ab5d-4c77-b162-f29034de40a8/methamphetamine-dangers-exaggerated-20140218.pdf

 

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 

Crack vs. powder cocaine: Were differences exaggerated?

During some of the bloodiest years of the drug wars of the 1980s, crack was seen as far more dangerous than powder cocaine, and that perception was written into the sentencing laws. But now that notion is under attack like never before.
Criminologists, doctors and other experts say the differences between the two forms of the drug were largely exaggerated and do not justify the way the law comes down 100 times harder on crack.

https://archive.ph/g0fIx#selection-1585.4-1585.59

 

. In the United States during the mid-1980s, for example,

crack cocaine was believed to be so powerfully addictive that even first-time users would
become addicted. Even more worrisome was the perception that the drug produced unpredictable
and deadly effects. Despite the fact that there was virtually no real evidence supporting these
claims, in 1986, the United States Congress passed the now infamous Anti-Drug Abuse Act
setting penalties 100 times harsher for crack than for powder cocaine convictions. 

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/43c2d274-ab5d-4c77-b162-f29034de40a8/methamphetamine-dangers-exaggerated-20140218.pdf

 

BS. 

 

No one involved in writing this has ever smoked crack. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

BS. 

 

No one involved in writing this has ever smoked crack. 

Thanks for sharing with us your expertise. It is to laugh.

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Thanks for sharing with us your expertise. It is to laugh.

Thanks for sharing with us your lack of expertise. It is to cry.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Thanks for sharing with us your lack of expertise. It is to cry.

I don't pretend to be an expert. That's why I cite those who are. Whereas your information looks like the kind that is gleaned from made-for-tv movies.

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I don't pretend to be an expert. That's why I cite those who are. Whereas your information looks like the kind that is gleaned from made-for-tv movies.

Ah yes, the left's experts. 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Ah yes, the left's experts. 

Please link me to proof that the people in the article are leftists. Otherwise it's just your typical dishonest name-calling.

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please link me to proof that the people in the article are leftists. Otherwise it's just your typical dishonest name-calling.

I will link to the proof that they are leftists, immediately after you provide proof that they are experts on crack cocaine. 

[mrwebb8825]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Legalizing murder would reduce crime as well. 

 

Should drug addicts get public assistance of any kind? 

Legalized murder - No, but there IS a law/defence in TX called "Needed Killing". Perhaps expand that to the federal level. Would be a bit chaotic for a year or 2 sorting through the bodies.

 

Should drug addicts get "Public Assistance"? How much of your tax money are YOU willing to part with for a stranger's stupidity? Some can be detoxed and stay straight, some can not. Give them 1 free shot at getting and staying clean. 2nd time gets them 5yrs working on a chain-gang cleaning streets, debris, etc..

 

PS if coke got legalized Hunter could reclaim his dope he forgot in the White House safe.