“We need to end the war,” Fox said. “It’s time to debate legalizing drugs,” he said, adding, “Then maybe we can separate violence from what is a health problem.”

How does legalizing evil stem the tide? As we have seen with the slippery slope of pornography and obscenity in the recent Iowa “Minor Stripgate”, there is nothing redeeming in legalized evil, it only opens the door for the proponents of immorality to push their agenda, hoping the world will give up the fight and succumb.
How does a former President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, have any right to teach America about what we must do to help solve a drug war, when his own administration was complicit in the problem of Mexico?

I have been to Tijuana, Mexico and the blight which the government has done nothing to solve is devastating. Driving from beautiful San Diego, California into a third world nation is shocking  and the children caught in the middle of this corruption dis-heartening, but legalizing something that destroys souls is not the answer to a moral problem. Fox urged the United States to continue helping fight drug-related crime and violence in his country. “It’s a shared responsibility and a shared problem,” he said.

This is a shared problem, because the drugs are smuggled into our country and destroy lives here, but making it legal only validates the evil and destruction, it doesn’t stamp it out.

According to the U.S. Boarder Patrol.com “The violence is so bad that Tijuana’s citizens have held mass protests in public squares and street marches packed with thousands all to call attention to their plight.”

We take a stand against violence and immorality in America, we don’t legalize it so that it is no longer “illegal” and therefore not a problem.  The logic of Fox to legalize drugs in order to stem the wave of violence makes as much sense as the the judge who ruled that children can dance at a strip club.  This is what the world is coming to if we do not stand against it.  It may seem easier to turn a blind eye and deaf ear and let life just roll on by, but the end result is the death of our society. We too will be Tijuana-ized if we follow the foolish ramblings of Vicente Fox.

7 comments
  1. Legalizing drugs would, at best, be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic with a huge array of potentially horrific consequences we can’t even begin to imagine. (Yes, I know: because they are “potential” problems, our liberal* friends would argue that we should just jump off the bridge and, if we die on impact, well, that’s OK, too, because at least they aren’t rightwing nuts…or something equally lunatic.)

    *And, of course, their bedmates in the big ‘L’ Libertarian, ‘absolute freedom at all costs even if it ends up impinging on other peoples freedoms in the end (see: increasingly-socialistic gov’t. above) because I want to get high’, movement.

    1. @ECM, spoken like somebody who doesn’t understand big L libertarianism or liberalism. The Libertarian position is precisely the opposite of what you seem to think it is, which is that freedom ends exactly when it infringes on another persons rights.

      And I am so tired of that “rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic” metaphor, because it is not apt. What exactly is so bad about being an American right now? If you don’t like it, you’re free to move.
      .-= Guy Incognito´s last blog ..Same Earrings =-.

      1. @Guy Incognito,

        It’s nice that you’re tired of it, but it doesn’t make it any less apt.

        The fact (yes, fact) is, we don’t know what the repercussions would be and, in a society where anything goes, legalizing drugs is just asking for it and it *will* impinge on the freedoms of others, period, starting with the first person that is killed, post-legalization, by someone high on a drug he or she wouldn’t have tried had it not been sanctioned by the state.

        But for (big ‘L’) libertarians, none of that matters: only the thought experiment made real of a perfect, Libertarian society, sprung fully-formed from Ayn Rand’s brow is a possibility, and any messiness (read: ultimately infringing on others freedoms, even though they swear there are these bright, hard, lines that will never be breached) resulting from the piecemeal implementation of such policies is
        cast aside in the name of their religion.

        The point is: the system as it is, sucks, but I’m not willing to gamble on exascerbating it in the name of proving a mis-guided philosophy.

        What exactly is so bad about being an American right now? If you don’t like it, you’re free to move.

        I don’t even know what this means (as it applies to my comment) but, coming from you, this is deliciously ironic!

      2. @ECM, lol, omg, now i know what you’re talking about!

        Do you understand what a metaphor is, right? And you do realize that, in the context of this article, ‘rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic’ refers to the War on Drugs and, on the other end of the spectrum, legalizing drugs, such that legalizing drugs would, at best, garner the same results, albeit in different areas (e.g. you’d spend less money on enforcement but more money on treatment)? You do get this, right? But no, you don’t!

        Oh man, thank you, thank you, I needed a hearty laugh today and you came through!

      3. @ECM, I really don’t think you understand what “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” means. I’d thank you for a hearty laugh, myself, but I don’t like to laugh at people for misunderstanding things.

        Let me explain, because I’d like to help you out. You said, “‘rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic’ refers to the War on Drugs and, on the other end of the spectrum, legalizing drugs.” This is an incoherent and nonsensical explanation (although it does help me to make sense of your earlier posts). This metaphor is not about a spectrum, rather it is about a smaller issue within a greater issue.

        When you’re re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, you’re making changes in a smaller thing within a larger thing one that is going to go down regardless.

        If you want to talk about the war on drugs on the one and legalization on the other essentially amount to the same financial burden that is all well and good, but if you employ the metaphor “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic” that only covers the “rearranging the deckchairs part” and the implication is that the “Titanic” part refers to the country, the government, etc.

        So, to paraphrase Inengo Montoya, you keep using this metaphor, but I do not think it means what you think it means:) Hope I could help, God bless.
        .-= Guy Incognito´s last blog ..Same Earrings =-.

  2. After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!
    http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
    .-= Brad Slusher´s last blog ..Avatar – Promoting that Ol’ Timey Religion =-.

  3. The same arguments were made about Demon Rum. That Prohibition was repealed after only twelve years of bloodshed. The current Prohibition has lasted much longer because its violence has been outsourced to parts of the U.S. empire – it is much easier to look down one’s nose at Tijuana than it is to hear tommy guns in Chicago.

    By taking the evilness of drugs as an article of faith, one is relieved of any need to be reasonable. It is best to restrict one’s faith to one’s deity. Mr Slusher points to the financial costs of this Prohibition, which are staggering. There is an even greater cost being borne by the societies on both sides of the border because vice will corrupt governments first of all. It was Oliver North’s patriotic duty to buy and sell cocaine for Ronald “Just Say No” Reagan, and one must assume that every president since has benefited from similar services.

    Incidentally, Mexico was never part of the Third World. Even when it was underdeveloped, it was never in danger of falling within the USSR’s sphere of influence. Mexico has always been squarely in the First World and it has been classed as a developed nation ever since the presidency of Salinas de Gortari.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Notre Dame President: Feinstein’s Litmus Test for Judges Is “Chilling”

University of Notre Dame President to Dianne Feinstein: “It is chilling to hear from a United States Senator that (faith) might now disqualify someone.”

Fairness Doctrine = Regulating Pornography?

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) thinks so. When it was law it did…

(Video) Chuck Grassley on Thanksgiving 2017

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): On this day of thanksgiving, let’s follow their example and take time to count our own blessings.

Iowa Family Policy Center Files Brief Supporting National Day of Prayer

From the Iowa Family Policy Center: 7/7/10 Chicago, IL – Today, the…