Printable View
It looks like the German troops in Afgahnistan are about to change their duties. U to now they tried to secure the peace and collect weapons. Now they prepare themselves to fight the drog clans. This may be a decisive strike against the Taliban and AQ, it could help install a stable Afghanistan. On the other side, it can also lead to a big civil war and make things even worse.
What do you think?
Fighting drug trade in Afghanistan would most likely lead to less money to such organisations as the Taliban and AQ, however this will most likely strike hardest against the farmers, as it usually does.
It seems to be another case of simply attacking the top of the problem, but then again I have no other information on this. :book:
It's like a raid in Columbia or other South American countries....
Confiscating the drugs is like a sending to complete poverty for farmers.... They live by selling cocaine and other drugs.....
Ironically when the Taliban was in power, the drug trade in Afghanistan was very small.
Why don't they just tax the opium and get lots of money off of it? ~:confused:
Because opium and its friends are destructive to society and cause addiction, death, and misery.
Your idea would be great for Marijuana. It is far less destructive than alcohol.
Well yes, I'm very much for the legalization of marijuana. ~D
And it is a bit harder for me to give the ok for the harder drugs. But legalizing makes more sense to me than the insane amount of effort to prevent it.
I gave some thought to this quite a bit back when I was a dirty hippie myself. (I even voted for Gore! This was before I came to my senses.)
The government could legalize Marijuana and tax the hell out of it. The problem with this is that legalizing marijuana increases access to it. Thus, use by children and adolescents would increase.
I would assume that the American public who would partake would be divided into two camps: Those who buy from the store, and those who grow their own.
I would imagine that the first steps in legalization would be to discourage private party growth by only permitting the sale of a non-fertile variation of the buds and make private growth a crime, say a heavy fine or something. The government could also pump out a bunch of propaganda on the ills of homegrown MJ, saying it is less safe or something. The government would then have to set up a certifying regulatory agency under the FDA in order to certify all commericalially grown and sold marijuana as "safe for human consumption".
Generally, I think this would work. But we would also need a method of detection that is more intract then that which we currently use. The problem is that drivers under the influence of Marijuana would increase, resulting in more injuries and property damage. In order to discourgae this, we need better detection. The problem with MJ and detection is that it stays in the system for a very long time. We would need a method of detecting how much, just as we detect alcohol as BAC.
As for harder drugs, these drugs are actually quite serious and cause very real problems for individuals and society. I highly highly highly discourage the use of these chemicals as they WILL destroy your mind and body, and permanantly disqualify you from many professions. Better to think ahead, because you never know what you may end up doing as a career. Life is funny that way.
Following on from Divinus Arma's idea, I wouldn't mind seeing ecstasy legalised, government produced and taxed the hell out of. It's one of the the few drugs that is comparatively harmless (it has a LD50 of ~100g/kg so for a 60kg person, that's 6kg of the stuff you have to consume ~:eek: ~:eek:, if I consumed six kilos of a lot of stuff I would be dead!), yet people still die every week from it, due to impurities/additives etc. If the government took over it, they can tax it, and increase the safety level of it at the same time. Yet they insist on banning a drug, which as far as I can tell is less harmful than either tobacco or alcohol.
Why does everyone assume legalization means that through taxation, you can control a thing?
Handguns are legal in the United States. Every single one that is sold legally is taxed. Yet, the Left swears there's no controlling the usage of even the legally sold ones and all must be siezed and banned.
Likewise, tobacco is the #1 illicit drug in the United States. More tobcacco is sold without a stamp (dollarwise) than any other drug.
You all assume an omnipotent, ominscent government that somehow can tame the wild narcotic trade.
And I actually support the legalization argument. But let's at least make a better effort at making good arguments for it, eh?
I have. Safety. Taxation is a nice little side benefit.
As for why I government controlled supply would tame it, well if you were offered teh choice of $x for a pill, with a 0.001 chance that it would kill you and a $1.5x pill with a 0 chance that it would kill you, which one would you take. Remember, MDMA is not addictive, so there are not huge dependency reasons for buying the cheaper ones. Maybe I am over eistimating human rationality, or the value people place on their own lives, but to me it makes no sense whatsoever to go with the illicit one if there was a government controlled supply around.
Dgb,
Should all drugs be available to all people? The problem with the policy in the drug war is the arguments seem hypocritcal when you compare legal drugs, such as oxycodone and alcohol, versus illegal drugs, such as marijuana and pcp.
The fact remains, the problem is economic, not moral. As long as you provide a market of buyers, there will remain a market of sellers. If you want to get kids off of ecstacy, of course, do all you can to slow it's illegal trafficing, but legalize it. The sheer economic pressures alone guarantee manufacture, shipping and marketing can be observed and steered.
A better model than tobacco, which does find it's way to kids, is hardcore pornography. I'm not a big fan of it, but it's a perfectly legal industry that rarely finds its way to minors. It has enough of a marketplace to survive, so it doesn't feel a need to aggressively pursue minors. From time to time, some 'marketing genius' in porn decides to sell to youths or market youths as a product. The free market, and proper regulation takes over from there.
Thats an amzing an arguement against it, thank you for being so informative ~:rolleyes:
So I could get three untaxed pills for every two taxed ones I buy? I can't see what's so hard about that choice. A lot of people will go for the cheaper alternative. It's the same with alcohol and tobacco.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgb
As for the Afghan drug trade, I doubt very much goes to the Taliban or AQ. They were strictly against that sort of thing. IIRC many drug clans supported the US invasion (or at least stayed out of the way).
Ultimately, I think if you have free and easy (even if controlled and taxed) access to a 'luxury' item that has a pleasurable effect on your body, be it drugs, alcohol or tobacco, or whatever, someone somewhere is going to want to supply it without paying their dues and someone is going to want to buy it without paying their dues - it happens in this country with both alcohol and tobacco.
I cannot really see any way that any government or state body will ever completely eradicate it. I don't smoke but I do drink and yes, I have bought alcohol from 'the man in the pub' who has obviously been on a booze cruise (for non-Europeans: the booze cruise is someone from the UK hopping over the channel to France, filling a van with super-cheap alcohol, coming back here and selling it without paying duty).
When we consider controlling supply legally and introducing taxes shouldn't we also look at the extra cost such an action is going to introduce as well? One of the biggest drains on our health service here at the weekend is alcohol induced injuries - we would have to consider the increased number of people seeking medical attention for problems introduced by increased drug (and here I'm referring solely to marijuana). Despite people's assertations that it is completely harmless in itself, any state of mind that has you less in control will create potential risks to health. In addition to that I personally know people whose mental health has severely deteriorated since they started smoking pot regularly - extremely heightened paranoia, panic attacks and similar. How long before they need help?
I know it is not the drug that is the problem, only that like drink it brings out behavioural traits already present in the person in question.
For the record I am not against the legalisation of marijuana, I just think we need to be a bit more honest and circumspect about the effects such legislation might have.
You want to refute it instead of just spouting retoric? And while you are there, look up the meaning of comparatively. You will find that in the context I used it, it is a key adjective, and ignoring it (as you appear to have done) completely misrepresents my argument. Do a bit of research and you'll find that nearly all of the deaths when MDMA has been present have had a large number of contributing circumstances. As stated previously, on pure lethality of MDMA alone, you have to consume ridiculously huge amounts to get anywhere near the LD50.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
At the risk of your life? Since when has illegal tobacco killed anyone in a way that normal tobacco doesn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spetulhu
Lets do some maths? Assume that a untaxed pill is $100, and a taxed pill is $150. Now lets assume that you have a 1/10000 chance of dying from the untaxed pill. Working on expected returns, that basically says that you value your life at $500,000. Is that correct? If I give you $500,000 on the condition that you kill yourself, will you take it?
Maybe I'm overestimating the rationality of people, or how much their own estimation of their self worth is.
I really think you're underestimating people's desire to be 'getting one over on the system' or 'getting something for nothing'. A sad state of affairs, but there are massive sections of society who will go with the cheapest option every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by dgb
There was a story in the press here a good few months back about people being poisoned by bootleg vodka illegally imported from Eastern Europe - it was full of some terrible chemicals and some people got very, very sick. Even after the problem was brought to public attention, people continued to buy it and continued to get sick. Why? Becasue it was illicit and cheap and we all like feeling naughty every now again don't we?
Erm...how many troops did Germany have in Afghanistan? Because I wasn't aware they had many, and if they don't, they're gonna need a whole lot more.
While I'm not 100% sure of the current number, as I can't interpret this qoute:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
2k each, or together?Quote:
Germany and France are the lead nations for the Kabul Multinational Brigade. Of the more than 30 troop contributing nations, France and Germany provide some 2,000 soldiers within the brigade.
Germany had more than 2.000 troops last year atleast.
BTW a list on troops contributing countries:
Albania
Austria
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
FYROM
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States of America
ISAF homepage
Notice that not all troops contributions go through ISAF.
BTW Kaiser, do you know how much troops US got in Afghanistan this year? Could only find numbers from last year (17,900).
Isn't Germany restricted by domestic policy to no more than 2500 troops on foreign soil at any one time?
I'm sure I read an article somewhere that said the Bundesrat was considering passing legislation to allow it ot meet this commitment and increase the viable number of troops stationed abroad - will try to find it.
You are still missing the point. Relative to other drugs, including legal ones, it is comparatively harmless. Most of the harm done by ecstasy is due to bad manufacturing and impurities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Ecstasy alone will only kill you in either extremely high concentrations, or if you have an extremely rare condition. The same can be said for any substance, and I don't see you clamoring to ban them. Maybe you are the one who should stop taking in the FUD and get a grip on reality.
Ecstasy does have side effects yes, but lets get some perspective here. If I had to have one set of side effects, I'd take them over those of tobacco, or even alcohol.
I'll get off the high horse when you actually make a coherent argument that refutes what I say, rather than throwing up any related link you can find, and saying that it proves your point when if anything it refutes your own argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Your own article
Eh, trust me, it is quite easy to get pot in highschool (not sure about middle school).Quote:
The government could legalize Marijuana and tax the hell out of it. The problem with this is that legalizing marijuana increases access to it. Thus, use by children and adolescents would increase.
Don't worry, wouldn't touch the stuff.Quote:
As for harder drugs, these drugs are actually quite serious and cause very real problems for individuals and society. I highly highly highly discourage the use of these chemicals as they WILL destroy your mind and body, and permanantly disqualify you from many professions. Better to think ahead, because you never know what you may end up doing as a career. Life is funny that way.
About ecstacy, how many people actually use that crap? I know some pretty heavy drug users, but most wouldn't touch it. Or is it widespread?
And Don, my point about taxes was more of a way to make money (hopefully to help people, but...) than as a form of preventing it. I would expect (and frankly hope) that people would still grow it themselves, but many would buy it through legal channels, especially if they sold the higher quality stuff.
Commit suicide? Of course not. But you have to understand how people think about these things. The risk of getting bad stuff is not very big, and you save a lot of money on the illegal product. The money saved can be used for buying even more of the stuff! ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by dgb
Alcoholics do like getting more booze for the same money. You see it in how professional boozers flock to the cheapest watering holes. Buying untaxed alcohol is certainly not below them. As Tony J pointed out, people sometimes die of drinking bad bootleg booze. The local story is smuggled Russian vodka that contains too much methanol.
But killing yourself for 500K might not be unacceptable to some of the heavy users. They'd just make sure they get to choose the method and then drink themself to death on your money. ~;)
Which was my point in my FIRST POST in this thread. Why has it taken this long for you to get here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
FFS, this has been my point all along. Get the government to regulate manufacture so that there are NO impurities, and legalise it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Maybe 10 years ago, byt awareness of the dangers at raves has seriously increased over the last decade of the need to drink water. You are not going to get me to support banning ecstasy, just because people need to be protected from themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
I've nothing agaisnt it for recreational purposes, if it is regulated. Yes tehre are some deaths due to it. Most are due to impurities/bad manufacturing. The rest are either due to sheer bad luck, or human stupidity. The same can be said for alcohol. It is hypocritical to try and ban ecstasy, while allowing alcohol and tobacco to be openly sold. Either you are protecting people from themeslves, or you are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
As far as I know Germany has the selfrestriction to only use military at home. This rule comes from the time when the Bundeswehr was formed and the impressions of WW2 were still fresh. The rule has been softened since.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyJ
Lately the supreme court decided that German troops can be used in abroad if they act in the frame of international peace keeping. I think if the government of Afg. askes them to, the German parliament could send more troops to help them. Sending troops to attack countries like Iraq, Syrai or Iran is much more difficult ( form the legal point of view). I t would be possible if there is a request by the UN.
Actual number of soldiers is limited by the parliament. They could increase it.
I strongly disagree. The "monsters" (which not all drug users are, by the way), already exist. Legalization (not of ecstacy, of any sort of drug) wouldn't turn everyone into drug users, it would stop the government from putting people in jail whose crime was only drug use. If the people commited a crime while on the drugs, or to get the drugs, then in all means put them in jail. But drug use itself shouldn't be a crime.Quote:
Clearly, Tobacco and Alchohol are enough. It's hypocritical, yes. But on the other hand, I just don't want more idiots running around intoxicated. Prohibition is impossible, and the smoking industry has it's tendrils too far into the government to be gotten rid of. That's not an excuse to create more monsters.
But weed is a lot easier to grow at home.
Well that's stupid... ~;)
Exactly. The biggest crime you can commit is stealing money from the state through tax evasion or the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube