Quote:
|
Cocaine smugglers and leftist rebels have infiltrated senior levels of the Colombian army, impeding efforts at defeating the guerrillas and fighting drugs, Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said on Monday.
|
Yeah... OK... gotcha..
Really? Tell me it isn't so. Next thing you will say is that Paris isn't a virgin.
This alone isn't thread worthy. However the parallels of the BC bud versus Columbian cocaine did come to mind.
Both are multi-billion dollar industries ruled by illegal entities (to put it mildly.) They each face public negative scrutiny in general from the laws of the land of most countries in the world. Opium poppies could be considered a third in line of "natural" drug sources.
So in Canada, we have recently been noticed for our high pot consumption vis-a-vis the rest of the world. Many have sought out that it should be legalized, with some well though out arguments such as a reduction in gang violence and reduced cost of product.
I wonder how that overlaps the situation in Columbia, where the cocoa bean rules. (Columbian pot USED to be the cat's arse.... 25 years ago...)
Several questions to all on CP (
praise Bingo, long live TSN jihads...points North and gives the finger, in Sutter we trust)....
Could you legitimize pot here, but not cocaine from there? What differentiates the two in you mind?
If you could go down to Costco and get a 500 gram bottle of cocaine for $69.95, would you be more inclined to use it?
Would you be willing to do so if your health care costs went up 1% per purchase? (Which your employer might be footing and notice.)
Would it be worth the saving of lives all around if there were no restrictions? Or would it cost more lives in the long run via health care, productivity and other issues like perhaps higher insurance claims? How would it impact gang violence? Would people be herded to other created substances like meth by those that seek profits?
What other questions come to mind?
Bottom line, if legalization of pot is OK, why stop there?