Topic: The War on Drugs
started by: damien_s_lucifer
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 24 2002,03:45
<moderator>The following post was made by Bob_the_Cannibal; it was moved to a new thread to prevent the old one from winding off topic.
</moderator>
| Quote |
Let me contribute to the wonderful fabric of the State of the US: an easy one: The 'War on drugs': Politicians, Drugs are bad, mmkay, they should be tested for lethality on animals, and properly experimented with, and then banned/regulated. If people want to kill theirselves by OD, fine, Go ahead, it's the american dream, really... ...but if you fuck yourself up, don't come to the government, asking for help. They aren't going to give you a cent. The whole reason drugs are so widespread is because "you can't have them". basic sociology/psychology. Did you ever want (or want to do something) just because you were not allowed? Of course you did. Scientists did an experiment on third graders, where they limited one type of crackers from another, and told the kids tht they could have as much of one as they wanted, but only a few of the other. The kids ate more of the limited one, another day, they ate equal amounts, when they could have as much as they wanted. another experiment: Legalization does not increase usage. In the Netherlands, usage for 18-22 is 18%, US has 33%. (issue 178, British Journal of Psychiatry) Alcohol is more deadly than Marijuana, proven fact. We tax alcohol, why not tax marijuana? 33% of the population, at 5 cents of a dollar, is quite a lot. We could level off, and possibly even pay back the National debt. food for thought, eh? |
Posted by veistran on May 24 2002,08:46
The war on drugs, less chance of being "won" than Korea + Vietnam combined into one war. That's the only thing I can think to say about it. It's a money pit, a good example of government existing solely to justify it's existence.
Posted by Wolfguard on May 24 2002,14:30
I dont know.If they treated it like a real war they could do a lot of damage.
One good thing is you treat it like a real war then selling drugs becomes treason and you get to shoot the bastards in the back of the neck.
but thats just me.
Posted by Wiley on May 24 2002,17:03
| Quote |
| Alcohol is more deadly than Marijuana, proven fact |
Yes, but it's more easily regulated thanks to the billions that have already been spent developing taxation, laws of use and the development of the ATF to enforce them. The problem with legalizing Maijuana now is that we would have to spend billions more to develop a taxation system, who can grow it, who can distribute it, what the government is and is not responsible for and who will enforce these laws. I can't really see a legalize pot at the cost of taxpayers bill ever passing. Especially since the current public opinion of the tabacco companies is so low. Essecially, the companies that produce and market marijuana will be just like tabacco companies with a new brand of cigarette. The public isn't going to make it easy for them. Truth.com will have a new pitch about the cancer threats from marijuana and MADD will weigh in about the effects of driving stoned.
I would think that the usage would go down quite a bit though. Most of my stoner friends get more joy out of being damn hippy stoners then they do actually smoking the stuff. To a lot of them it's all about who's got the coolest bong, who smokes the most pot, who can score the kindest bud and who is going to buy the sweetest 21 window rag-top bus and convert it into the most bitchinest hot-box on wheels the world has ever seen. Not that there is anything wrong with that, to me it's kinda like being a Trekie ...you dress in the garb and learn to speak Klingon to bond with your peers ...I just think that smoking pot will not be as cool once it's legal and a lot of people will loose interst.
Until then I guess we have to live with our stupid War on Drugs wich is kinda lame. Yeah the police can start kicking in doors at college dorms and put Snoop Dogg on the 10 most wanted list but what's the point? They know there will be backlash agaist more strict enforcement of the laws and we know that they are at out mercy and so we just pretend we are fighting a war on drugs ...but actually nobody gives a rats ass. When was the last time the police raided your local concert venue? They don't, unless you blow a puff of smoke into the face of a police officer they will look the other way when you spark up at a musical event ..even though they know your doing it ...in plain veiw! So how is this a war? If we were at war and I was at a concert with an AK-47 then I'd surely be carted off to jail.
Posted by Necromancer on May 24 2002,17:43
| Quote (Wiley @ 24 May 2002,17:03) | ||
Yes, but it's more easily regulated thanks to the billions that have already been spent developing taxation, laws of use and the development of the ATF to enforce them. The problem with legalizing Maijuana now is that we would have to spend billions more to develop a taxation system, who can grow it, who can distribute it, what the government is and is not responsible for and who will enforce these laws. I can't really see a legalize pot at the cost of taxpayers bill ever passing. Especially since the current public opinion of the tabacco companies is so low. Essecially, the companies that produce and market marijuana will be just like tabacco companies with a new brand of cigarette. The public isn't going to make it easy for them. Truth.com will have a new pitch about the cancer threats from marijuana and MADD will weigh in about the effects of driving stoned. |
Finally someone who sees my poiunt of view based on a practical basis rather than a "ooh pot that stuff sounds scary i don't think we should legalise it i might be voodoo cursed" basis.
Posted by veistran on May 24 2002,22:57
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 24 May 2002,08:30) |
| I dont know. If they treated it like a real war they could do a lot of damage. One good thing is you treat it like a real war then selling drugs becomes treason and you get to shoot the bastards in the back of the neck. but thats just me. |
It's hard to treat what is essentially a moral issue as an actual war.
Posted by Bob_the_Cannibal on May 25 2002,00:41
Here we go with that "legislating Morality" thing that CK and dys always flame each other about.Now, if you think about it, alcohol was around before the FBI, ATF and the constitution.
The regulation rules for marijuana can be a simple substitution of Tobacco for marijuana in the tobacco laws, and a simple substitution of the 'home-made Alcohol' laws and regulations. Those who may sell must register with the government, and account for everything that they sell. same with professional growers.
second, pot has a lower impurity rate than the lowest tar content cigarettes.
third, taxes on alcohol costed nothing to create. They're legislators, for christ's sake, they're paid to make laws. the DMCA only cost the lobbyists the price to buy enough influential senators.
enforcement? we already pay cops to bust potheads and crack fiends. won't cost that much to change the tasking for the average cop, since the new legislation is a cookie cutter of alcohol and tobacco laws.
Posted by Necromancer on May 25 2002,01:37
wolfman they actually did that in china didn' they? they rounded up everyone who was a drug addict and shot them. bumped the average to zero over night. 
Hey it might not seem fair but everyones got to answer for their lifes choices at some point
Posted by Wolfguard on May 25 2002,14:11
| Quote (veistran @ 24 May 2002,17:57) |
| It's hard to treat what is essentially a moral issue as an actual war. |
just like ww1, ww2, civil war...
You can say that for just about any war.
Would you like to try again?
Posted by Wiley on May 25 2002,16:54
How about this one:It's hard to treat it like a war when everybody on the home team wants to party with the bad guy.
Posted by CatKnight on May 25 2002,17:10
A couple days ago, mexican army soldiers and mexican federal police officers crossed over the boarder in a truck and SHOT AT a US boarder patrol truck to cover some drug smugglers. They shot out the guy's back and front windows, narrowly missing his head. Furthermore, they shot at him while he was driving away in retreat! Is it just me or is that an act of war?
Posted by veistran on May 25 2002,20:56
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 25 May 2002,08:11) | ||
just like ww1, ww2, civil war... You can say that for just about any war. Would you like to try again? |
I wrote this long reply, it was pretty good, then I thought of a better one... no, war is a physical and very tangible issue. Drug use is a moral issue, really one facet of the moral issue of "what lifestyle choices are you allowed to make on your own."
Posted by Necromancer on May 26 2002,01:04
| Quote (CatKnight @ 25 May 2002,17:10) |
| A couple days ago, mexican army soldiers and mexican federal police officers crossed over the boarder in a truck and SHOT AT a US boarder patrol truck to cover some drug smugglers. They shot out the guy's back and front windows, narrowly missing his head. Furthermore, they shot at him while he was driving away in retreat! Is it just me or is that an act of war? |
no thats some idiot mexicans being bribed by some drug peddlers acting against the mexican governments intentions. if i went into america as a soldier of the uk government and shot some american soldiers i'd be punishble by the uk court for acting without orders. Its not that hard to understand. it isnt world war 3 CK get a grip please
Posted by CatKnight on May 26 2002,22:28
well i didn't say we should go to war, I was just saying how outrageous it was.
Posted by Wiley on May 26 2002,23:05
Mexico and the US have some strange laws about chasing people across the borders, maybe this led to some confusion and shots were fired ...I saw something similar happen once.I was in Mexico (in TJ, right at the border) arguing with a Mexican shop owner because he wanted me to give him $60 for a cheap statue that I broke in his store and I was only willing to give him $5. He called the police over and we were all arguing. All of a sudden this police chase came down the US side towards Mexico and crashes through the toll plaza into Mexico. The CHP wasn't about to let the guy get away and they crashed through the toll plaza right after him. The Mexican feds start shooting at everybody, even the CHP. The cop I was arguing with starts firing at random at the guy in the car and the CHP who went right past us. I ran like hell with the shop owner still following me swearing.
I'm thinking that if the Mexican feds were chasing some dude and the border patrol got involved then anything coulda happened ...it's not like the two law enforcment agencies have the best communications in the world.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 27 2002,01:03
lol @ wileyhonestly, CK, if someone down there WAS following orders, it would be hard to decide if we should take it as an act of war, or give Mexico a medal for having a chain of command for once.
Posted by CatKnight on May 27 2002,01:34
touche 
Posted by Wolfguard on May 27 2002,15:10
| Quote (veistran @ 25 May 2002,15:56) |
| no, war is a physical and very tangible issue. Drug use is a moral issue, really one facet of the moral issue of "what lifestyle choices are you allowed to make on your own." |
"I think we should be able to pratice what ever religion we want and not have some king tell us what to do."
"I think that there should be no slaves in these United States"
"If Germany runs unchecked personal freedoms will suffer."
"I think that comunists need to be stopped."
are these not just facets of the same lifestyle moral issue? Did not these "facets" become a reason for war?
Posted by Bozeman on May 27 2002,15:49
You can win a war against a country, but it's almost impossible to win a war against an idea.
Posted by Wolfguard on May 28 2002,03:31
The smart ass flame answer would be "thats why there are nukes."The ideal answer is once you knock over the country you can then start an open discussion with its people. Through the exchange of knowledge you hope you can change the idea you thought was moraly wrong.
In an ideal world once they see your point and still dont like you they have the right to tell you to get stuffed.
But, the war on drugs is not this type of war. There are a few people making a lot of money selling "poison" to the people of the united states. These people have assets that are protected by what amounts to a private armys. So, this war could be fought by taking out these assets and the armys that protect them.
The goal of war is to remove your opponants ability to wage war. If their ability to grow, process and distribute is blown to hell they loose.
Posted by Beldurin on May 28 2002,04:49
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 27 May 2002,21:31) |
| The smart ass flame answer would be "thats why there are nukes." The ideal answer is once you knock over the country you can then start an open discussion with its people. Through the exchange of knowledge you hope you can change the idea you thought was moraly wrong. In an ideal world once they see your point and still dont like you they have the right to tell you to get stuffed. But, the war on drugs is not this type of war. There are a few people making a lot of money selling "poison" to the people of the united states. These people have assets that are protected by what amounts to a private armys. So, this war could be fought by taking out these assets and the armys that protect them. The goal of war is to remove your opponants ability to wage war. If their ability to grow, process and distribute is blown to hell they loose. |
BUONNGGG!! </Jay the Junkie>
Posted by Bozeman on May 28 2002,05:38
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 27 May 2002,23:31) |
| The ideal answer is once you knock over the country you can then start an open discussion with its people. Through the exchange of knowledge you hope you can change the idea you thought was moraly wrong. |
Knocking over countries? If we waged war on all the countries that provided us with drugs, it would be seen to be a bid for global domination, as there are many.
Conquest can't be the best answer, and nuclear warfare is never an answer.
Posted by Beastie Dr on May 28 2002,06:18
I have made the informed decision to stay away from this forum, BUUUUUUT:"The government is not there to protect people from themselves, it is only there to make sure these people do not infringe upon the rights of others. "
Smoking a jay in my room does not hurt you.
Posted by veistran on May 28 2002,06:27
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 27 May 2002,09:10) | ||
"I think we should be able to pratice what ever religion we want and not have some king tell us what to do." "I think that there should be no slaves in these United States" "If Germany runs unchecked personal freedoms will suffer." "I think that comunists need to be stopped." are these not just facets of the same lifestyle moral issue? Did not these "facets" become a reason for war? |
There was a lot more than personal freedom at stake when it came to the Germans the second time around. The first time around we have the Serb's to blame for setting off that bonfire by assassinating the heir to the throne of Austria.
Revolutionary war was well beyond a simple moral issue, it had gone beyond that when you had the punitive taxes, and general exploitation of the colonies.
The communists needed to be stopped because they were bad for buisness as it were.
The American civil war was about considerably more than just slavery, unfortunately and despite what most people are taught about it. Most of it was not moral issues.
Posted by Wolfguard on May 28 2002,13:14
so much for inteligent answers...
Posted by Beldurin on May 28 2002,18:53
Sorry, I didn't feel like being serious at the time. This is another of those "it's easy to see what should be done, but it probably never will be" issues. We should actually put forth the full effort of the resources at our disposal. But it won't happen. Too many of the decision-makers are either clients of the drug cartels, or they're funded by them. It's a sad fact, but what can we do?
There should be stricter laws in place and more severe punishments for those who traffic in this poison, but somehow I doubt that there will be, for the reasons mentioned above.
It's just disheartening when most people can see what is right, but it never gets done.
Posted by CatKnight on May 28 2002,19:56
| Quote (Wolfguard @ 27 May 2002,14:31) |
| But, the war on drugs is not this type of war. There are a few people making a lot of money selling "poison" to the people of the united states. These people have assets that are protected by what amounts to a private armys. So, this war could be fought by taking out these assets and the armys that protect them. |
didn't reagan and bush try that? it didn't work because we went at if half-assed.
Posted by Beastie Dr on May 30 2002,05:22
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_2014000/2014861.stm >Read it. Weep, if necessary.
Posted by Wolfguard on May 30 2002,13:46
| Quote (CatKnight @ 28 May 2002,14:56) |
| didn't reagan and bush try that? it didn't work because we went at if half-assed. |
that is correct. They went at it half-assed.
If they put their entire ass on the line it would of worked fine.