The initial "libertarian" reaction might be to agree with this, but here's the thing: Notice he's not pushing for legalizing it, which could severely cut into cartel "profits," causing them to scale back on unprofitable operations simply as a market reaction. That's not part of the plan, which requires even more "problems" only a monolithic monopoly of violence government can "solve." Keeping it illegal and then turning an intentional blind eye, establishing an official policy of overt deliberate indifference, not only allows, but encourages the gangs to continue, to thrive and to grow. It guarantees a ratcheting up of violence, creating more high-profile opportunities to con the gullible into demanding more citizen disarmament, all the while redistributing plunder extorted from the productive sector to expand federalization/militarization of all police functions, plus giving self-promoting politicians a hot media spotlight.
Oh, and by the way, we need to up your "fair share" to pay for all this, and if you don't like it, you're a racist teabagger.
He hasn't taken this position because he's some kind of progressive civil libertarian, or because he's a leader focused on priorities needed to secure the blessings of Liberty, propaganda tool Barbara Walters fulfilling her assigned role by nodding in sympathetic admiration notwithstanding (in exchange for the "exclusive" and the gravitas).
He knows exactly what he's doing. He does, indeed, have "bigger fish to fry."
Oh, and by the way, we need to up your "fair share" to pay for all this, and if you don't like it, you're a racist teabagger.
He hasn't taken this position because he's some kind of progressive civil libertarian, or because he's a leader focused on priorities needed to secure the blessings of Liberty, propaganda tool Barbara Walters fulfilling her assigned role by nodding in sympathetic admiration notwithstanding (in exchange for the "exclusive" and the gravitas).
He knows exactly what he's doing. He does, indeed, have "bigger fish to fry."