Hillary Clinton: We Can't Legalize Drugs Because 'There Is Just Too Much Money in It'

[squarepush3r]

Hillary Clinton: We Can't Legalize Drugs Because 'There Is Just Too Much Money in It'


Jacob Sullum | February 7, 2011

Last week, while visiting Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interviewed by Denise Maerker of Televisa, who asked her opinion of proposals to address black-market violence by repealing drug prohibition. Clinton's response illustrates not only the intellectual bankruptcy of the prohibitionist position but the economic ignorance of a woman who would be president (emphasis added):

Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?
Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.
​

Clinton evidently does not understand that there is so much money to be made by selling illegal drugs precisely because they are illegal. Prohibition not only enables traffickers to earn a "risk premium" that makes drug prices much higher than they would otherwise be; it delivers this highly lucrative business into the hands of criminals who, having no legal recourse, resolve disputes by spilling blood. The 35,000 or so prohibition-related deaths that Mexico has seen since President Felipe Calderon began a crackdown on drugs in 2006 are one consequence of the volatile situation created by the government's arbitrary dictates regarding psychoactive substances. Pace Clinton, the way to "stop" the violent thugs who profit from prohibition is not to mindlessly maintain the policy that enriches them.
[via the Drug War Chronicle]

 

[mean mr.mustard]

There's no way that the prison system and LEO will find any money in it if it's legal.

There will be less money as soon as it's legal... because it's legal.... and less isn't more.

She's right in the statement "There is just too much money in it." On both sides. LEO won't make money at all, and growers will make less.

She is right.

 

[Green lung]

I want to say that we should very careful when debating about marijuana legalization not to get lumped in with "drug legalization".


Thats what the prohibitionhist want! They want to lump weed in with crack and meth. Don't fall into the trap!



Always make a distinction

 

[mriko]

yeah, CIA needs the dope money to fund their secret ops, legalization is bad for their business.
Clinton is the Whore of Babylon !

Irie !

 

[pearlemae]

HR 2943 is BILL INTRODUCED BY BARNEY FRANK (D) Mass. that will remove criminal penalties at the Federal level for up to 3 1/2 oz's, and allow the transfer of and ounce between people with no penalties. Rep Frank has introduced this bill each year for the preceding two years, but we never heard of it. Perhaps the media neglected to tell us.

Check out the Marijuana Policy Project.

 

[ddrew]

I want to say that we should very careful when debating about marijuana legalization not to get lumped in with "drug legalization".


Thats what the prohibitionhist want! They want to lump weed in with crack and meth. Don't fall into the trap!



Always make a distinction

Exactly
That's how Obama sidestepped all the internet questions on MJ and Hemp this year, by answering one question that related to the legalization of all drugs.

Cannabis/Hemp needs to be judged on its own individual merit.

 

[Anti]

HR 2943 is BILL INTRODUCED BY BARNEY FRANK (D) Mass. that will remove criminal penalties at the Federal level for up to 3 1/2 oz's, and allow the transfer of and ounce between people with no penalties. Rep Frank has introduced this bill each year for the preceding two years, but we never heard of it. Perhaps the media neglected to tell us.

Check out the Marijuana Policy Project.

Actually, I was fully aware of Barney's repeated attempts at introducing this legislation. Guess it's time to switch news sources?

 

[SacredTHCRitual]

There's no way that the prison system and LEO will find any money in it if it's legal.

There will be less money as soon as it's legal... because it's legal.... and less isn't more.

She's right in the statement "There is just too much money in it." On both sides. LEO won't make money at all, and growers will make less.

She is right.

the pyramid effect

supporting both sides of the problem to keep a balance. nobody ever the said the balance had to be pretty. Go to Washington state close to the Portland, Oregon boarder and you will see this statement ring loud. The business in town is cops vs "drugs"...its all over the neighborhoods and you can see its like a never ending war to justify more budgets and armored cars...drugs are the perfect enemy..its something people will never stop using, its something that can be easily demonized, who loses in all of it though? the cops get paid, the neighborhood ghettos all sell weed to survive financially at least possibly harder stuff but if weed was legal these guys in the apartments would be out of side income.

What Hilary Clinton should say is she and her friends are not smart enough to figure out real jobs for all the people that will lose work if drugs are legalized.

 

[wiseone]

Also remember the pharmaceutical companies can't risk losing all the funding they get to conduct their 'research'.
They along with banking and energy control the policies made and the money spent by Washington. Our politicians are mere puppets on strings for them.
Once you remove those barriers a lot of folks wouldn't seek or stay in office because there is no "incentives" coming from the BIG 3.

 

[zenoonez]

I want to say that we should very careful when debating about marijuana legalization not to get lumped in with "drug legalization".


Thats what the prohibitionhist want! They want to lump weed in with crack and meth. Don't fall into the trap!



Always make a distinction

I am for the legalization of all drugs. However, you are right, we should focus on mj rather than falling into their pitfall. I usually simply say that if they want to discuss the merits for legalizing all drugs we can do that at a later time.

Edit: It must be hard being that intelligent but having to support such a stupid policy.

 

[motaco]

I think you missed her point and she is right.

Decriminalization is a pretty dumb idea. It says its legal to possess something. But not to manufacture, transport, or distribute it. Well the stuff doesn't fall out of the sky.

In other words the same folks (violent mexican drug cartels) who bring it into the country now, will still have most of the same risks except the market will be larger and worth more money. That is not going to stop drug violence in Mexico, if anything it will increase it.

I hope you understand I'm not in favor of keeping pot illegal. I'm just saying that paradigm is just as bad if not worse. The only people its better for are bottom end dime bag buyers who don't have to worry about going to a "DARE" program if they get arrested. People with nicknames like "the butcher" for chopping peoples heads off would still be in power. Probably more than ever before.

The question posed to her wasn't "wouldn't it be great if dime bag buyers weren't hassled?" the question was about if decriminalizing marijuana would help end narco trafficking related violence in Mexico. Which it wouldn't.

US homegrown mom and pop weed is whats is going to run out the mexicans. In less than thirty years our domestic pot growers have taken over half of the weed market and profits from violent drug cartels and kept billions of dollars profit stateside and in our own economy, but gained no credit for it. I say we keep down this path and run these gun toting gangster cocksuckers out of business one way or the other. Regardless of if our gov't gives us the official go ahead or not. Down with rope, up with dope.

 

[Lazyman]

There's no way that the prison system and LEO will find any money in it if it's legal.

There will be less money as soon as it's legal... because it's legal.... and less isn't more.

She's right in the statement "There is just too much money in it." On both sides. LEO won't make money at all, and growers will make less.

She is right.

Agreed, I was very concerned about the welfare of many rural California areas with Prop19, as legalization would have likely put many or most of them out of business. Some would adapt and survive, but not nearly enough to support the huge pot-based economy that's supported now. Money in the hands of the few makes the government more money than putting it all in the hands of a few rich folks. Rich folks use offshore accounts, tax shelters, and every dirty trick in the book to avoid paying taxes. Little guys like us pay so we blend in with the herd.

 

[purple_man]

rofl yow!

i mean, ain't she bills wife/ex-wife, mr "i didn't inhale" clinton...
the same one, who did help pharma corp "storm troopers" invade afghanistan to curb up the opium production...
ain't she a politician in a country, which DID HAVE A WAR ON DRUGS/ALCOHOL before, aka prohibition, which as well held sooooo much $ in it at it's own time, and was "changeable" into a very profitable LEGAL bizzz... yadda yadda...

damn, the facade is fading!
blessss

 

[quitelost]

Legalize

Legalize

rofl yow!

i mean, ain't she bills wife/ex-wife, mr "i didn't inhale" clinton...
the same one, who did help pharma corp "storm troopers" invade afghanistan to curb up the opium production...

I believe you are misinformed brother, from what I understand the taliban kept a lid on opium production so that thier friends in the buisness could get a premium on the product, when they were in power Afganistan was not the top producer of opium. After the states invaded Afganistan became the top producer of opium worldwide and production went up hundreds of percentage points. Also the US government protects and pays many that are widely considered to be top international opium trafficers, including the Afgan presidents brother... I can provide many sources but am feeling quite lazy right now.

Plus the US goverment is said to have sanctioned the distrubution of opium and "freedom of afganistan" black hash in the 1980's which was distributed by the Afgan "freedom fighters" (as well as providing many other types of monatary and tactical support, including arms) many of whom went on to form the Taliban and Alqueda in later years...

In my opinion this war was begun to fatten the wallets of the Military Industrial Complex, and to use the legal system to erode Americans and peoples all over the world rights, both of which have occured. Drugs are part of the story but not the whole...

 

[wiseone]

Drugs are part of the story but not the whole...

Good point!!
I'm sure if we REALLY knew what was going on, etc. 2 things would happen:
1. It would be way more than what probably 90% of us here, and elsewhere, would be able to comprehend.
2. A majority in this country would be in denial "Oh NO, Not my government." and would continue to let it happen.

 

[Baba Ku]

Just say NO to mexican bullshit.
Hillary Clinton is anybody's dog that will hunt with her.
Always fighting hard for us....(gag reflex)

 

[crazybear]

Really what did anyone expect to come out her mouth! Like yeah that's a good idea, or your right were spending sh*i loads of money running a war on drugs that's un-winable!
Politicians could could care less about how much of our money there spending, to bust people for using & growing a plant!