The Problem With The War On Drugs

I submit to you that perhaps the problem with the War on Drugs is that it is not a real war.
If you made taking drugs and selling drugs a treasonous offense (as helping the drug trade enriches our enemies) and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs, and a 1 shot and you are out deal for anyone taking them (the first time you are caught you get life in prison...the second time death), do you really think that the drug trade would continue in America?
If you cooperated with the Mexicans (and other Latin American countries) to send in military forces and torch any opium fields, wipe out meth labs, and kill everyone involved and everyone aiding them (inside the US, and where possible outside), would that not nearly completely stop illegal drug use?
Maybe we just have not been taking a hard enough line...

Yes, China became a glorious paradise after Mao eradicated all those who stood in the way of that paradise.

No, Vuk, the demonization you represent is a much bigger problem. Narcotics is a mixed issue, but the problem stems mostly from social issues and poverty. Eradicate those, and you won't have much of a drug problem anymore. And as a bonus, you won't become a sadist in the process.

And lower the age requirement on booze. Getting drunk is a natural part of growing up, and you would want teenagers to get off on those things with the least side-effects, ie. alcohol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, China became a glorious paradise after Mao eradicated all those who stood in the way of that paradise.

No, Vuk, the demonization you represent is a much bigger problem. Narcotics is a mixed issue, but the problem stems mostly from social issues and poverty. Eradicate those, and you won't have much of a drug problem anymore. And as a bonus, you won't become a sadist in the process.

And lower the age requirement on booze. Getting drunk is a natural part of growing up, and you would want teenagers to get off on those things with the least side-effects, ie. alcohol.

---

No, they are a very real problem, and better left out of society. There is nothing sadistic about it. The types of people you would be disposing off (murderous drug lords and the occasional dopey college student or small time street punk) would be the types of trash who would only create problems in society anyway. ~;)
Lower the age requirement? Why, because hormone loaded teenagers are not stupid and dangerous enough to themselves and the rest of society now? Now you want them sloshed as well? BRILLIANT!

The punishments you suggest would drastically reduce the rate of virtually any crime committed in a given country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The punishments you suggest would drastically reduce the rate of virtually any crime committed in a given country.

---

~;)
Exactly.
And the great thing is that after you killed the first few drug smugglers to show that you were serious, you would probably never or virtually never have to dish out the punishment again. Do you know how many lives are lost because of drugs that would be saved?
Think of all the poor Mexicans being killed by drug lords trying to supply OUR market! That would no longer be happening, and we and most of Latin America would be much happier for it. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

The punishments you suggest would drastically reduce the rate of virtually any crime committed in a given country.

---

Indeed. It would also create a living hell.

"I want them sloshed as well"? What world are you living in? Teenagers do get hammered. The question isn't whther we want them "sloshed" or not, but whether we want them high on meth or drunk on beer. Those are your two choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Indeed. It would also create a living hell.

"I want them sloshed as well"? What world are you living in? Teenagers do get hammered. The question isn't whther we want them "sloshed" or not, but whether we want them high on meth or drunk on beer. Those are your two choices.

---

It would create a living hell? lmao...you are amusing my friend...How so? Because there would be less criminals, less crime, less drug related deaths, no turmoil over drugs in Latin America (but who cares about the Mexicans, huh?), less of a burden on our health care system, and we would have smarter, more sober citizens making better choices and enjoying better lives? That is your definition of a living hell?
You are right, they do get sloshed, but with better enforcement and harsher punishments they would not. ~;)

Hey guys, I have this idea. So people don't want to be killed right? Well if we just made the punishment for every crime the death penalty, no one would do anything bad right. So we just need to execute everyone for any wrong doing and we won't have any crime anymore.

You disagree HoreTore? I guess that means you want our society to die in an orgy of drugs and mexicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

It would create a living hell? lmao...you are amusing my friend...How so? Because there would be less criminals, less crime, less drug related deaths, no turmoil over drugs in Latin America (but who cares about the Mexicans, huh?), less of a burden on our health care system, and we would have smarter, more sober citizens making better choices and enjoying better lives? That is your definition of a living hell?
You are right, they do get sloshed, but with better enforcement and harsher punishments they would not. ~;)

---

I don't feel such nonsense deserves a proper reply.

Have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I don't feel such nonsense deserves a proper reply.

Have fun.

---

If you can't argue it, belittle it. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Hey guys, I have this idea. So people don't want to be killed right? Well if we just made the punishment for every crime the death penalty, no one would do anything bad right. So we just need to execute everyone for any wrong doing and we won't have any crime anymore.

You disagree HoreTore? I guess that means you want our society to die in an orgy of drugs and mexicans.

---

Not every crime deserves the death penalty, but I believe that murder does. When you kill a murderer, you are saving lives. People who buy drugs and who sell drugs are not only funding world terrorism, but they are causing unfathomable cruelty and death in 'third-world' countries where drug lords exploit and murder people so that our pathetic, useless pot-head college kids can get their blood-fix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I submit to you that perhaps the problem with the War on Drugs is that it is not a real war.
If you made taking drugs and selling drugs a treasonous offense (as helping the drug trade enriches our enemies) and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs, and a 1 shot and you are out deal for anyone taking them (the first time you are caught you get life in prison...the second time death), do you really think that the drug trade would continue in America?
If you cooperated with the Mexicans (and other Latin American countries) to send in military forces and torch any opium fields, wipe out meth labs, and kill everyone involved and everyone aiding them (inside the US, and where possible outside), would that not nearly completely stop illegal drug use?
Maybe we just have not been taking a hard enough line...

---

.... or we could just legalize drugs and allow people to take responsbility for their own decisions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Not every crime deserves the death penalty, but I believe that murder does. When you kill a murderer, you are saving lives. People who buy drugs and who sell drugs are not only funding world terrorism, but they are causing unfathomable cruelty and death in 'third-world' countries where drug lords exploit and murder people so that our pathetic, useless pot-head college kids can get their blood-fix.

---

I'm sorry, if we didn't have these forum rules, I'd call you some very bad names. Most pot college kids smoke around here is locally grown and produced. Futhermore, smoking pot doesn't make you "useless" or "pathetic". Abusing pot makes you useless and pathetic. Please learn the difference as you can apply the same concept to booze or most other mind altering substances.

OMG, I figured this was going to be a revoke-the-war-on-drugs, reel in the powers of police, and give us back our civil liberties (War on Drugs does not just impact druggies, just like 99.99% of the people affected by the Patriot act are not terrorists, terrorist-sympathysers or have even read a book about terrorism)

You want a country where the Death Penalty is used for all sorts of things...well, take a look at such paradises as North Korea and Iran.

The biggest problem with the Death Penalty, especially in the US, is wrongful conviction. You can't just say "oops, we made a mistake, turns out you were innocent after all, have a nice time trying to put back together your life...", no instead it is telling a family "Oops, sorry, but when we killed him we reasonably thought he was guilty...".

Drugs are bad..OK, but so is alcohol. Some studies would say alcohol is much worse than several drugs...and very few would disagree that alcohol is responsible for more societal problems and violence than cannibis. Remember how well prohibition worked?

As long as there is money to be made, there will be people who are despirate enough, stupid enough, or greedy enough to try. And Mexico and Colombia do not need to be torn apart even further by more violence trying to purge them of drug production. We can't even stop drug production within the US, what makes you think you can stop it in the bloody jungle.

All of this is very naieve, if you ask me.

Quote:

---

.... or we could just legalize drugs and allow people to take responsbility for their own decisions?

---

Well, legalization combined wih treatment has worked in some places.

One key element of legalization is that you both effectively eliminate the criminal component (since you make it unprofitable for them). If anyone who wanted could grow a Cannibis plant in their backyard, do you think drug dealers could make anything selling it?

Another is that you remove a lot of the very dangerous elements from drug use - dirty needles, drugs being misrepresented, being pushed harder drugs without knowing (A lot of different things are sold as ecstacy...).

Anyway, to quote Princess Leia,

Quote:

---

the more you tighten your grip, the more systems that slip through your fingers...

---

. To be honest, it is true. Study after study has shown that treatment and regulation work better than the authoritarian hard-line punishment approach.

But I know this post is 99.9% likely to be a waste of time and energy, but what the heck, maybe someone in here has an open mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I submit to you that perhaps the problem with the War on Drugs is that it is not a real war.
If you made taking drugs and selling drugs a treasonous offense (as helping the drug trade enriches our enemies) and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs, and a 1 shot and you are out deal for anyone taking them (the first time you are caught you get life in prison...the second time death), do you really think that the drug trade would continue in America?
If you cooperated with the Mexicans (and other Latin American countries) to send in military forces and torch any opium fields, wipe out meth labs, and kill everyone involved and everyone aiding them (inside the US, and where possible outside), would that not nearly completely stop illegal drug use?
Maybe we just have not been taking a hard enough line...

---

International relations

You're doing it wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaguara

One key element of legalization is that you both effectively eliminate the criminal component (since you make it unprofitable for them). If anyone who wanted could grow a Cannibis plant in their backyard, do you think drug dealers could make anything selling it?

---

If anyone could grow a cornstalk in their backyard, do you think that rich, land-owning farmers could make anything selling it?
There is the matter of land needed (try growing it in a back alley), time needed, etc.

See, this is the problem with meddling with language. With too big words, too casually tossed about.

If you call a 'coordinated and intense effort' a 'War' on Drugs, then inevitably it will become thought of in terms of war. Inevitably people will come to understand the project in martial terms. So when it isn't being 'won', the question is perfectly logical and legitimate to ask why the marines aren't send in to shoot drug using college kids.

After all, it is a war, right?


Vuk is right. Vuk is perfectly logical. It is the language of Washington that is wrong. Its projects to steer reality through langauge and terminology are mistaken, are having a debilitating effect on public discourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Hey guys, I have this idea. So people don't want to be killed right? Well if we just made the punishment for every crime the death penalty, no one would do anything bad right. So we just need to execute everyone for any wrong doing and we won't have any crime anymore.

---

Summat like this, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I submit to you that perhaps the problem with the War on Drugs is that it is not a real war.
If you made taking drugs and selling drugs a treasonous offense (as helping the drug trade enriches our enemies) and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs, and a 1 shot and you are out deal for anyone taking them (the first time you are caught you get life in prison...the second time death), do you really think that the drug trade would continue in America?
If you cooperated with the Mexicans (and other Latin American countries) to send in military forces and torch any opium fields, wipe out meth labs, and kill everyone involved and everyone aiding them (inside the US, and where possible outside), would that not nearly completely stop illegal drug use?
Maybe we just have not been taking a hard enough line...

---

(a) - Why are you so frightened of someone getting high?
(b) - Why would you treat young people with such cruelty?
(c) - Why would you treat anyone with such cruelty?
(d) - Why would you volunteer such draconian powers over individuals to the state?
(e) - Now that the state has those draconian powers, where is the next area of personal behaviour they will be used upon?

Ah the War on Drugs there's a Bill Hicks analogy in here somewhere but I'm a bit afraid Vuk's head might explode from real truth.

Well... you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

I don't think Vuk's idea would work since as someone pointed out the root problem of drug abuse is poverty and until you eradicate that you will just be executing hordes of poor people. How can you try to be logical about it when they are addicts, they'll do what it takes to get their fix whatever the risks. And sure you can clamp down on the top dogs but so long as crime pays and they don't have many other opportunities in life, they're going to turn to crime.

At the same time I think liberals are too smug with their utopian vision of liberalisation. Yeah, it will solve drug abuse... just like how there's no alcohol abuse when it is legal. :rolleyes:

Nor will the black market disappear, the number of illegal cigarettes smuggled into the UK is phenomenal.

So... drug abuse will always suck whatever you do. If you are responsible then congratulations, but don't think it makes one bit of diference to an addict whether it is legal or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

(a) - Why are you so frightened of someone getting high?
(b) - Why would you treat young people with such cruelty?
(c) - Why would you treat anyone with such cruelty?
(d) - Why would you volunteer such draconian powers over individuals to the state?
(e) - Now that the state has those draconian powers, where is the next area of personal behavior they will be used upon?

---

(a) - I am not, I just don't agree with murdering people so that you can get high. Also, you are well aware of the other problems associated with drug use.
(b) - I don't think age is an excuse. If someone murders they deserve death...plain and simple. I do not discriminate.
(c) - Punishing someone for murder is not cruelty. They will be warned, and you will only end up having to kill people who (a) are dangerous criminals willing to risk it to make money or (b) desperate, dangerous individuals who will do anything for a fix...including risk their own life.
(d) - The death penalty? What is draconian about it? If someone is a murderer, they need to be killed so they will not kill more. Are you aware that many States already have the death penalty for some crimes? Treason currently can be punished by the death penalty, so nothing would really change.
(e) - So you are saying that if the state is empowered to execute murderers who are convicted of murder by a jury, next thing they will be sending in the military because you complained about taxes? Really?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I don't think Vuk's idea would work since as someone pointed out the root problem of drug abuse is poverty and until you eradicate that you will just be executing hordes of poor people. How can you try to be logical about it when they are addicts, they'll do what it takes to get their fix whatever the risks. And sure you can clamp down on the top dogs but so long as crime pays and they don't have many other opportunities in life, they're going to turn to crime.

---

Ah, so it is poor people who mostly buy expensive drugs? Good, now they will not be wasting all their money and driving themselves into poverty. Maybe when they are not wasting $1000s on a blood fix they will move up in the world. Also, I would be willing to bet that there is just as much drug use in the middle and upper class, but they are just not cracked down on as hard...and are harder to catch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

If anyone could grow a cornstalk in their backyard, do you think that rich, land-owning farmers could make anything selling it?
There is the matter of land needed (try growing it in a back alley), time needed, etc.

---

How's the black market corn trade doing?

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

See, this is the problem with meddling with language. With too big words, too casually tossed about.

If you call a 'coordinated and intense effort' a 'War' on Drugs, then inevitably it will become thought of in terms of war. Inevitably people will come to understand the project in martial terms. So when it isn't being 'won', the question is perfectly logical and legitimate to ask why the marines aren't send in to shoot drug using college kids.

After all, it is a war, right?


Vuk is right. Vuk is perfectly logical. It is the language of Washington that is wrong. Its projects to steer reality through langauge and terminology are mistaken, are having a debilitating effect on public discourse.


Summat like this, yes.

---

Sometimes you're too much of a polemicist for your own good.

Let’s go through point by point the mind numbing stupidity and intellectual dishonesty that is the op

Quote:

---

I submit to you that perhaps the problem with the War on Drugs is that it is not a real war.

---

Of course it's not, it's wrapped up in that nice little bow of jingoism to whip up the masses so congress can justify pouring money, men, and material into the same countries we've been screwing with since the Monroe doctrine. The war on drugs consists of mostly slush fund money to old anti communists and slush fund money to those that would further US interests. It is no surprise that the same drug dealers the US wishes to stamp out are the ones that give US backed interests the most problems

Those rebels in the Venezuelan jungle (backed by drug money) have had a much easier go than those in Columbia (backed by drug money)

I WONDER WHY

So yes in that sense it’s not a war, an imperialist venture would be a much more suitable and honest term

Quote:

---

If you made taking drugs and selling drugs a treasonous offense (as helping the drug trade enriches our enemies) and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs, and a 1 shot and you are out deal for anyone taking them (the first time you are caught you get life in prison...the second time death), do you really think that the drug trade would continue in America?

---

You make the naive, childlike assumption the war is actually about drugs, just like Nam was about the Communism and Iraq was about WMDs. It's amazing the bull excrement people believe when a man in a suit tells them it. I need to invest in more suits apparently. But I will indulge you in the vain hope of changing your mind lest you open your mouth and try to recruit the masses to your untenable, ridiculous position

So the rule of law is just a fad now? We're going back to draconian measures, which of course history have shown time and time again have the opposite of the intended effect. You would have 100 million poor Indians banging on the door of the DF, Caracas, and Sao Paulo by lunch time. I would love to see how you would spin yanqui breaking down doors and shooting anyone who has ever come into contact with drugs. That’ll go over real well

As long as there is money to be made the drugs will continue to flow. Now I'm sure these violent fantasy sound awesome in your head but in the real world violence seldom has the intended effect schoolboys want it to have

Quote:

---

If you cooperated with the Mexicans (and other Latin American countries) to send in military forces and torch any opium fields, wipe out meth labs, and kill everyone involved and everyone aiding them (inside the US, and where possible outside), would that not nearly completely stop illegal drug use?

---

Do you know how armed troops in Mexico would go over? Do you know anything about Mexico? Do you know how many US troops would die? How much bad favor we would curry? How many young Mexicans who would grow up with a poisonous view of the US? How much this would cost? How tenable is destroying everything?

You have no plan based in ethics or logic, just to many nights up at 3 am playing total war

And killing our own citizens for a dime bag? I can tell you were raised with the republic in mind

Quote:

---

Maybe we just have not been taking a hard enough line...

---

No the line we are taking is to hard and it is what creates gangs in the first place. If someone wants to ingest something, that's their business not the states. By forcing it underground you create these problems; we are reaping what we sowed in the 30s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

(d) - The death penalty? What is draconian about it? If someone is a murderer, they need to be killed so they will not kill more. Are you aware that many States already have the death penalty for some crimes? Treason currently can be punished by the death penalty, so nothing would really change.

---

Just because we're already doing it wrong sometimes doesn't mean we should start doing it wrong more.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

(a) - I am not, I just don't agree with murdering people so that you can get high. Also, you are well aware of the other problems associated with drug use.

---

I'm not sure any sentient being agrees with murdering someone in order to get high, but murder is not in question here. The issue is drug use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

(b) - I don't think age is an excuse. If someone murders they deserve death...plain and simple. I do not discriminate.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

(c) - Punishing someone for murder is not cruelty. They will be warned, and you will only end up having to kill people who (a) are dangerous criminals willing to risk it to make money or (b) desperate, dangerous individuals who will do anything for a fix...including risk their own life.

---

You speak again of murder, but murder is not the issue. Drug use is. You spoke of executions for drug users in your original post, not executions for murderers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

(d) - The death penalty? What is draconian about it? If someone is a murderer, they need to be killed so they will not kill more. Are you aware that many States already have the death penalty for some crimes? Treason currently can be punished by the death penalty, so nothing would really change.

---

I was speaking again to how drug users would be treated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

(e) - So you are saying that if the state is empowered to execute murderers who are convicted of murder by a jury, next thing they will be sending in the military because you complained about taxes? Really?

---

We must have a crossed wire here somewhere. I was speaking to the issue of drug use, as per your original post, but you are speaking to the issue of murder only.

All my questions were to the issue of how "you" would treat drug users. Sorry if I was unclear in my previous post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I'm not sure any sentient being agrees with murdering someone in order to get high, but murder is not in question here. The issue is drug use.



Indeed.



You speak again of murder, but murder is not the issue. Drug use is. You spoke of executions for drug users in your original post, not executions for murderers.



I was speaking again to how drug users would be treated.



We must have a crossed wire here somewhere. I was speaking to the issue of drug use, as per your original post, but you are speaking to the issue of murder only.

All my questions were to the issue of how "you" would treat drug users. Sorry if I was unclear in my previous post.

---

You don't understand though Beirut, it is a matter of where the drugs come from. Right now, the drug industry is responsible for untold death and destruction in Latin American countries, the Middle East, etc. When you buy drugs, you money goes toward continuing that cycle of murder and destruction. People know this, and yet they still buy drugs. That is murder...plain and simple. The question of drug use is the question of murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You don't understand though Beirut, it is a matter of where the drugs come from. Right now, the drug industry is responsible for untold death and destruction in Latin American countries, the Middle East, etc. When you buy drugs, you money goes toward continuing that cycle of murder and destruction. People know this, and yet they still buy drugs. That is murder...plain and simple. The question of drug use is the question of murder.

---

You're a fool

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

You're a fool

---

That was a very intelligent response Strike. Perhaps you would like to tell me how deliberately supporting an injury built around human death and exploitation is not murder. I would really love to hear it!

EDIT: Or do you not like to hear it said because you yourself are a user?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You don't understand though Beirut, it is a matter of where the drugs come from. Right now, the drug industry is responsible for untold death and destruction in Latin American countries, the Middle East, etc. When you buy drugs, you money goes toward continuing that cycle of murder and destruction. People know this, and yet they still buy drugs. That is murder...plain and simple. The question of drug use is the question of murder.

---

Aside from the point that I believe you are utterly and completey wrong - what about someone who grows his own pot? Should he face The Big Sleep courtesy of the state?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

Aside from the point that I believe you are utterly and completey wrong - what about someone who grows his own pot? Should he face The Big Sleep courtesy of the state?

---

A - He would know what would happen before he did it.
B - He would have one strike first. If he still doesn't care enough about his life to stop, why should I care about his life?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

A - He would know what would happen before he did it.
B - He would have one strike first. If he still doesn't care enough about his life to stop, why should I care about his life?

---

I'm not sure anyone is asking you to care about his life.

On the other hand, you seem willing to take it from him, or at least to authorize someone else taking it from him.

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

That was a very intelligent response Strike. Perhaps you would like to tell me how deliberately supporting an injury built around human death and exploitation is not murder. I would really love to hear it!

---

You have blinders on and you don't realize it

The gulf between our understandings of the situation is so great it would be a pointless venture to debate you.

You clearly have not put any thought or research into your position. It is merely a postulation of violent fantasy that seems tenable due to way to many hours spent watching B grade movies and playing video games

At first I thought you were a troll but now I realize I was mistaken, you are simply ignorant. Not many people call you on it because let's face it, life is too short. Me attacking you has much more to do with my own personal flaw of having no tolerance for :daisy: or bad logic.

Everything you post is the same half researched half anecdotal tripe that makes people cringe and sets those looking to debate or, in the front room asking for advice back

I respsonded in post 24

Vuk... even if your plan would have the desired effects and eliminate drug use... do you think it is justice if someone dies for possessing some pot for personal use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Vuk... even if your plan would have the desired effects and eliminate drug use... do you think it is justice if someone dies for possessing some pot for personal use?

---

That's the one I'm waiting for. :juggle2:

No! You guys are so wrong! This is the breakdown:
Drugs=Murder
Drug Trade=More murder
Death Penalty=Less drugs=less murders

So when you murder you are doing drugs and when you do drugs, you are murdering. We need to send in the troops and murder them before they murder us with their murderous drug use.

I don't think I should have to care about the lives of all these poor druggies, what people are losing focus on, is that we need to protect the lives of those who are being murdered by the drug trade, because life is sacred. Therefor, we need the death penalty.

Does that explain it Strike and Beirut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Sometimes you're too much of a polemicist for your own good.

Let’s go through point by point the mind numbing stupidity and intellectual dishonesty that is the op

---

Non! There is never too much polemicism!

Rather than mere name-calling, one can ask why people think what they think. How come that in the course of the past ten years America went from overwhelmingly homophobic to overwhelmingly liberal on the issue? Is it because Americans became mind numbing smart and intellectually honest, or because of other mechanisms? In case of the latter, what mechanisms?


If the drugs issue was described in other terminology, say a liberal policy as a source of national pride, then we'd have an entirely different thread here. ('You Euros may not like freedom very much, but we Americans don't like our government telling us which recreational drugs we can and can not use')

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

You don't understand though Beirut, it is a matter of where the drugs come from. Right now, the drug industry is responsible for untold death and destruction in Latin American countries, the Middle East, etc.

---

Only because drugs are illegal. How many gangsters do we have shooting it out over alcohol? None, because alcohol is legal.

Quote:

---

When you buy drugs, you money goes toward continuing that cycle of murder and destruction. People know this, and yet they still buy drugs. That is murder...plain and simple. The question of drug use is the question of murder.

---

And what about here in Washington, where most weed comes from Canada, where the worse gangsters do is act slightly less polite to each other?

Actually, don't bother answering. You make completely false assumptions, but the core problem seems to be binding together actions without any legal, moral, or philosophical basis. Buying something from a murderer does not make you a murderer.

...

As for your plan - the reason for the second amendment is in case people with 'ideas' like yours get in charge.

CR

The amount of times vuks done this you'd think people would stop getting angry over what he says.

I'm not angry, just sad.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The amount of times vuks done this you'd think people would stop getting angry over what he says.

---

His level of ignorance is just rediculous. I'm fairly sure not one poster has agreed with him in this thread. I don't take this subject lightly either. The STUPID STUPID STUPID drug war is already ruining enough lives and his solution is to impose the death penalty on anyone who uses drugs? LOL in a sad way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

At the same time I think liberals are too smug with their utopian vision of liberalisation. Yeah, it will solve drug abuse... just like how there's no alcohol abuse when it is legal

---

.

What? I don't think many "liberals" would argue that making drugs legal will suddenly stop abuse. What it will do is stop locking people up, allow them to seek treatment, and take money away from cartels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

If anyone could grow a cornstalk in their backyard, do you think that rich, land-owning farmers could make anything selling it?
There is the matter of land needed (try growing it in a back alley), time needed, etc.

---

I am sorry, but that is about the most laughable comparison I have ever heard. Do you know what the wholesale price for corn is? The only way to make money on corn is with massive factory farms and economies of scale.

As Ajax, pointed out there is not a huge "blackmarket" trade in corn (though there is some small-time underground/roadside selling) and no criminal trade in corn.

Legalization & regulation of pot removes the criminal element from it's ditribution. It does not stop abuse, that is why you also need to fund treatment. Compare to alcohol, again since legalization, it is controlled and taxed, and the criminal element in alcohol distribution (which thrived during prohibition) has mostly been eliminated. The best part is that taxes on the controlled substance can fund the treatment programs.

So, if you legalize or at least de-criminalize these things, removing the profit for criminals, you also solve the problems of drug wars in Mexico and Colombia. If there is no longer the promise of ultra-profits, then you remove the incentive. They can either grow for legit distribution at a tiny fraction of previous profits, or plantations go back to producing coffee. There certainly is nothing to shoot each other over.

The other aspect that you are ignoring, while harping about drug crime deaths, are the deaths and lives destroyed due to the war on drugs itself. Until you get that far there is no point in trying to go into more difficult concepts such as "Is the war on Drugs intended to fail, and so to be a perpetual war never making gains". Ignore as well the corruption in institutions of Colombia & Mexico (?and even the US?) where they are tied into that same drug trade. In Mexico a General will raid one cartel, because he gets pay offs from their competitors. As long as there are ultra-profits in drugs, corruption will go hand-in-hand.

The only way to eliminate the criminal elements of drug production & distribution is to remove the ability to profit, or reduce the profit margins to the point where they are not worthwhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

I'm not angry, just sad.

Ajax

---

I'm not angry or sad. I'm just wondering if it will be one of the guys in this thread executing me with his own hands or will he be farming it out to the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Non! There is never too much polemicism!

Rather than mere name-calling, one can ask why people think what they think. How come that in the course of the past ten years America went from overwhelmingly homophobic to overwhelmingly liberal on the issue? Is it because Americans became mind numbing smart and intellectually honest, or because of other mechanisms? In case of the latter, what mechanisms?

---

meh, gays in America are still fighting a tough fight, I would argue there are bigger issues are at play and those social issues some small interest groups were able to push in the 90s when times are good get pushed to the wayside. Thus making it eaiser for gays

Gay rights are something any sane and mature inividual would agree with

Quote:

---

If the drugs issue was described in other terminology, say a liberal policy as a source of national pride, then we'd have an entirely different thread here. ('You Euros may not like freedom very much, but we Americans don't like our government telling us which recreational drugs we can and can not use')

---

I don't like the government telling me what drugs I can use. I despise even more the "war on drugs"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

The amount of times vuks done this you'd think people would stop getting angry over what he says.

---

Gotta roll with it and have some lulz, I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beirut

I'm not angry or sad. I'm just wondering if it will be one of the guys in this thread executing me with his own hands or will he be farming it out to the state.

---

This is an important point.

So many people like to pontificate about how violent rhetoric or whatever fear-fad of the moment is causing physical violence, but they support using the violence of the state against people they disagree with on social issues.

I really hope Vuk is trolling us and doesn't believe this.

CR

The problem with the war against fascism is that it's not really a war.

If we took any internet crazy right-winger troll and sentenced him to death, we would be so much better off. And it would be a real war too.

Let's avoid the trend towards personal abuse, please.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

~;)
Exactly.
And the great thing is that after you killed the first few drug smugglers to show that you were serious, you would probably never or virtually never have to dish out the punishment again. Do you know how many lives are lost because of drugs that would be saved?
Think of all the poor Mexicans being killed by drug lords trying to supply OUR market! That would no longer be happening, and we and most of Latin America would be much happier for it. :)

---

After the first dip, the drug crime ratio rises again, since people remember that getting punished also involves getting caught. Tension between the police and population increases, with more violent lethal arrests, since more people got nothing to lose.
CR is getting a field day/becomes broken and possibly dies in a raid, having a stack of drugs "found" at his home.
Some internet smartass concludes that the buying drugs=murder logic can be applied on the guns industry. Some crazy guy spectacularly kills a gun suppplier to the police, and being clear of his intent that the police are now oppressors.

The US goverment decleare this anti-gun trend to be treason towards the second ammendment, punishable by death. Since drug use is already considered treason, this is easy. The anti gun lobby is rounded up and executed. Civil war erupts.

Traumatized former soldiers are drowning thier memories by alchohol and drugs. A few more entreprenouric soldiers takes control of the drug market with help of their former comrades in arms. One charismatic oppotunistic cynical is using that drug money to finance a successful coup against the surviving US goverment, making a drug lord as the new ruler of the US.

Going more and more speculative the further down I go, but yep it's a really bad idea from the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

This is an important point.

So many people like to pontificate about how violent rhetoric or whatever fear-fad of the moment is causing physical violence, but they support using the violence of the state against people they disagree with on social issues.

I really hope Vuk is trolling us and doesn't believe this.

CR

---

If he does, he'll be busy.

After killing me and most of my family, and my wife and most of her family, and most of my friends, co-workers, and several hundred aquaintances, there are probably several tens of millions more to kill after that in the US and Canada.

Vuk, are you free Tuesday? Tuesday is good for us. We're all getting together for a Final Breakfast at IHOP. Anytime after 10 is fine. :smiley:

I have decided to go through Vuk's posts with a fine tooth comb at 1AM in order to expose the full idiocy of this argument. May god have mercy on my soul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I submit to you that perhaps the problem with the War on Drugs is that it is not a real war.

---

The problem is that drug use should be treated as a public health issue, as opposed to a LAW'N'ORDER political stick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

r. If you made taking drugs and selling drugs a treasonous offense (as helping the drug trade enriches our enemies)

---

They are only our enemies because the War on Drugs makes them so, with the possible exception of FARC and the Shining Path, both of whom would be greatly strengthened by the intervention you advocate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs,

---

good god

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

, and a 1 shot and you are out deal for anyone taking them (the first time you are caught you get life in prison...the second time death),

---

How do people get out of prison to take them for a second time if they're sent away for life? Also, do you have any idea how mind-bogglingly expensive that would be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

do you really think that the drug trade would continue in America?

---

Absolutely, as drug use is already very well established, as opposed to countries like Japan, Singapore etc. where it has never been prevalent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

If you cooperated with the Mexicans (and other Latin American countries) to send in military forces and torch any opium fields, wipe out meth labs, and kill everyone involved and everyone aiding them (inside the US, and where possible outside), would that not nearly completely stop illegal drug use?

---

This sounds like a Monroe Doctrine for Fascists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Maybe we just have not been taking a hard enough line...

---

If such laws ever come to pass, I swear that I'll frame you for dealing in revenge for advocating such a totalitarian system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

There is nothing sadistic about it. The types of people you would be disposing off (murderous drug lords and the occasional dopey college student or small time street punk) would be the types of trash who would only create problems in society anyway. ~;)

---

You would be shocked, shocked, by how many members of the current political elite have toked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Lower the age requirement? Why, because hormone loaded teenagers are not stupid and dangerous enough to themselves and the rest of society now? Now you want them sloshed as well? BRILLIANT!

---

That the drinking age is twenty one in America is one of the most tragic things about being a young American. The contempt that must inspire such laws must be a revolting atmosphere to put up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

And the great thing is that after you killed the first few drug smugglers to show that you were serious, you would probably never or virtually never have to dish out the punishment again.

---

They've tried that many many times. It doesn't work, and the subsequent Balkanization of the suppliers makes it harder to do the same thing twice, whilst making the violence more vicious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Think of all the poor Mexicans being killed by drug lords trying to supply OUR market! That would no longer be happening, and we and most of Latin America would be much happier for it. :)

---

So in order to save the Mexicans, we have to kill the Mexicans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

It would create a living hell? lmao...you are amusing my friend...How so?

---

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. - Orwell

Quote:

---

You are right, they do get sloshed, but with better enforcement and harsher punishments they would not

---

.
Utter rot.

Some of the best experiences of my life were spent drunk, whether they were dancing with beautiful women, comforting one of my bros over a pint of bitter in my local, or drinking a Czech under the table. And I haven't even been able to drink legally for 12 months. Even if none of that had happened, alcohol has allowed me to relax in social situations at university by allowing me to smash down the barrier of my social awkwardness, and has set me on course for the happiest three years of my life. To deride that as just "getting sloshed" leaves me without words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

Not every crime deserves the death penalty

---

No crime deserves the death penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I believe that murder does. When you kill a murderer, you are saving lives.

---

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

People who buy drugs and who sell drugs are not only funding world terrorism, but they are causing unfathomable cruelty and death in 'third-world' countries where drug lords exploit and murder people so that our pathetic, useless pot-head college kids can get their blood-fix.

---

That you cannot see the blatant contradiction in your own argument leaves me astounded and ever so slightly more pessimistic about the future of the human race.

Quote:

---

(a) - I am not, I just don't agree with murdering people so that you can get high.

---

Yet you believe in the state murder of people who do get high?

Quote:

---

Also, you are well aware of the other problems associated with drug use.

---

Which is why a policy of harm-minimisation should be implemented, as opposed to democide.

Quote:

---

(b) - I don't think age is an excuse. If someone murders they deserve death...plain and simple. I do not discriminate.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

(c) - Punishing someone for murder is not cruelty. They will be warned, and you will only end up having to kill people who (a) are dangerous criminals willing to risk it to make money or (b) desperate, dangerous individuals who will do anything for a fix...including risk their own life.

---

So you honestly believe the state should have the power to take away the life of its own citizens, and that this should be exercised nearly every time the law is broken?

Quote:

---

(d) - The death penalty? What is draconian about it? If someone is a murderer, they need to be killed so they will not kill more. Are you aware that many States already have the death penalty for some crimes? Treason currently can be punished by the death penalty, so nothing would really change.

---

2009 was the first year in history no-one was executed in Europe. Abolitionism is slowly but surely gaining ground.

Quote:

---

(e) - So you are saying that if the state is empowered to execute murderers who are convicted of murder by a jury, next thing they will be sending in the military because you complained about taxes? Really?

---

Once you given the state the power to kill the citizens it is meant to protect, this becomes a lot more likely. I would have thought you would have been all for reduced government power.

Quote:

---

That was a very intelligent response Strike. Perhaps you would like to tell me how deliberately supporting an injury built around human death and exploitation is not murder. I would really love to hear it!

---

You're a damned fool Vuk.

Quote:

---

EDIT: Or do you not like to hear it said because you yourself are a user?

---

Without a moments hesitation I would sooner smoke my first spliff than permit such odious proposals as you suggest.

Quote:

---

You don't understand though Beirut, it is a matter of where the drugs come from. Right now, the drug industry is responsible for untold death and destruction in Latin American countries, the Middle East, etc. When you buy drugs, you money goes toward continuing that cycle of murder and destruction

---

Even though this blatantly fallacious argument is completely wrong, would you permit the usage of Crystal Meth, given that it's made domestically?

Quote:

---

People know this, and yet they still buy drugs. That is murder...plain and simple. The question of drug use is the question of murder.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

Quote:

---

EDIT: Or do you not like to hear it said because you yourself are a user?

---

LOL

I don't use any of the drugs you describe but I do crush a 12 pack of beer 1 night a week as part of a cheat meal


When you kill me, make it a quick death, a warriors death
Better yet, KARATE CHOP ME

Again, gentlemen, let me warn you against deploying personal insults no matter how frustrating your opponent's position.

That way vacations lie.

Thank you kindly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

That way vacations lie.

---

You know, I could really use a vacation...got anything in Cuba?

Oh wait, you meant...:oops:

(Sorry BQ, silly mood I guess...in seriousness, we "all" appreciate your constant vigilance...or most of us anyway)

I'm starting to think Vuk's real name is Eustace Fargo.:helmet:

It's good to know that all that time I spent in college getting high with my friends, listening to music and laughing our collective ***** off at Monty Python, Firesign Theatre, and George Carlin, that what we were really doing was killing Mexicans and Columbians:laugh4:

Maybe I owe an apology to the Thai people I killed by lighting up all those Thai-sticks, or the Nepalese for all the Nepalese finger hashish I smoked:oops:

Quote:

---

So you are saying that if the state is empowered to execute murderers who are convicted of murder by a jury, next thing they will be sending in the military because you complained about taxes? Really?

---

Well, they sent in the military to kill a few students that didn't care much for US foreign policy, once...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

It's good to know that all that time I spent in college getting high with my friends, listening to music and laughing our collective a**** off at Monty Python, Firesign Theatre, and George Carlin, that what we were really doing was killing Mexicans and Columbians:laugh4:

Maybe I owe an apology to the Thai people I killed by lighting up all those Thai-sticks, or the Nepalese for all the Nepalese finger hashish I smoked:oops:

---

Welll....unless you smoked / used some homegrown American drugs, you did just that. Then you really did work to destabilise Colombian, Mexican, Central Asian societies, did fund terrorism.

Such is the depravity of the War on Drugs. It creates its own enemies, makes itself complicit in, even the cause of, the crimes and destruction it seeks to combat.


Light a joint and you do kill a Mexican. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

I'm starting to think Vuk's real name is Eustace Fargo.:helmet:

---

If this were true, I would instantly forgive him.

Quote:

---

Light a joint and you do kill a Mexican.

---

Are you serious???

Quote:

---

unless you smoked / used some homegrown American drugs

---

Much of it was.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Are you serious???

---

Yes.


It still leaves the matter of responsibility and culpability. For example, if you tell me you will kill a Colombian for every line of cocaine I sniff, but not if I don't, and you make good on that promise, then indeed with every sniff I kill a Colombian. Whether that makes you or me the murderer is something else...

I think the War on Drugs creates and perpetuates mechanisms that make people who use drugs financial supporters of organised crime, of terrorism, and of a flow of money that undermines the US and destabilises Latin America.
But this does not mean people who merely seek to enjoy some recreational drugs must be shot. On the contrary, people who support the War ion Drugs must be shot convinced of the futility and unintended but grave consequences of the policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Welll....unless you smoked / used some homegrown American drugs, you did just that. Then you really did work to destabilise Colombian, Mexican, Central Asian societies, did fund terrorism.

Such is the depravity of the War on Drugs. It creates its own enemies, makes itself complicit in, even the cause of, the crimes and destruction it seeks to combat.


Light a joint and you do kill a Mexican. :yes:

---

No.

The ones who brought it to that are the people and politicians who deemed themselves the masters of others and demanded drugs be made illegal. Those same people who insisted violence be used on harmless people, that agents of the government hunt consensual drug users down and use deadly force if necessary to make them stop, those are the ones responsible.

Those people are who started this war, and the blood is on their hands.

CR

Quote:

---

It still leaves the matter of responsibility and culpability.

---

And who is going to determine either/both of those factors? In these modern times, one can hardly use any commercial product, whether food, drug, fuel, or any other commodity, without being "responsible" for harm or death to come to some living thing, human or otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

And who is going to determine either/both of those factors? In these modern times, one can hardly use any commercial product, whether food, drug, fuel, or any other commodity, without being "responsible" for harm or death to come to some living thing, human or otherwise.

---

Exactly!

Eating a chocolate bar no more makes one a murderer of Africans any more than smoking a joint makes one a murderer of Mexicans.

If an African guy or a Mexican guy is going to cut off the head of his fellow man for some cocoa or pot profits, odds are he would cut someone's head off for pretty much any reason at all. The point is that the guy killing his fellow man is a :daisy: scumbag, and it is 100% his own fault that his picked up the knife/gun/club and killed the guy next to him with it.

The "War on Drugs" is a farce.

The politicos unleash the force of the state on users; basically a never-ending supply of victims. The users of course are rarely drawn from the "professional" or wealthy sectors (they might get "rehab" if they are ever even tagged) It's a mask, allowing the state to trample rights and funnel money to their friends imho.

It pours money into an exercise in futility, and away from anything that might possibly remedy the situation.

More than that - the war on druge helps inflate the profit in the whole supply chain. If cannabis was grown in massive fields there would be as much reason to grow cannabis oneself as there is to grow tomatoes - people do it, but there's little if any money to be made in it.

If labs were making tonnes of the synthetics the margins would be a barrier of entry for many others. It would cost too much to set up the supply chain.

If one really wanted to "win" the war on drugs, first step would be to legalise them, and on the same day to flood the market with the stuff from lisenced channels. Get one's coke from Wall Mart or some white substance from an odd chap in the corner of a bad neighbourhood? Tough call...

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

The "War on Drugs" is a farce.

The politicos unleash the force of the state on users; basically a never-ending supply of victims. The users of course are rarely drawn from the "professional" or wealthy sectors (they might get "rehab" if they are ever even tagged) It's a mask, allowing the state to trample rights and funnel money to their friends imho.

It pours money into an exercise in futility, and away from anything that might possibly remedy the situation.

---

to quote the tv show 'The Wire'

"This isn't a war. Wars end"

Modern drug laws are completely insane. Current laws trample all over everyones rights and make a mockery of what this country represents. Lately, Ive been hearing instances of police physically assaulting people outside of their homes for smoking weed. As dumb and pointless as weed is, any police officer who thinks he has the right to assault someone for smoking leaves should be thrown into the stockade. The older I get, the more absurd I see our legal system as being. We need to radically overhaul this pig. Guns in the hands of everyone and only laws that protect the lives and direct property of others should have any place in modern society. Set fire to red tape everywhere.

First of all, drugs have been a part of our society for as long as history and archeology goes back. One train of history actually claim drugs is the very reason we got civilized at all! It was the basis of why we left the hunter/gathering society, and formed communities. Oh, and this is not some small toker school of historical thought, this is more or less mainstream in historical circles these days.

With this said, is drugs good? Nope, hence we call it drugs.

As this is an international board, I use the term drugs for such things as alcohol too (in many countries alcohol is banned but marijuana is not - for the same reasons as we ban it the other way around, one being considered more dangerous).

Studies has shown that a very large amount of people to recreational drugs in their younger years, but stop when they get older and more settled. I would say that more people than not use recreational drugs without it affecting their work, social contacts and so on.

We thus have to make a difference between drug use and drug abuse.

Drug abuse is mainly due to other factors, HoreTore got into them. If you are poor and without dreams of a better future, it is an easy escape route from everyday life. Some take to World of Warcraft, some have a spliff, some do meth.

I was picked by the police for having a spliff in my younger years.

At the time, I did a pretty good job building up a company (that I later sold for quite a good win). I was on the board of two other companies, all doing well. I got together with the girl I have now, building up a functional relationship. The weed I smoked was grown by a friend of mine, on his yard.

Now Vuk goes on to say I should serve the rest of my life in jail, possibly get shot. What was my crime? Can anyone point out what I did wrong?

We already have laws dictating what people can and can not do. If someone does something stupid while being high he should get the same punishment as people unaffected by drugs.

But to take away drugs for recreational use - way?

I imagine Vuk has this image of drug user equals some black guy in the hood with shaky hands and a pistol.

The effects drug usually have on me is that I play Super Mario Kart with some friends, over eat chocolate and fall asleep early. So shoot me.

Hurray for Canada!

Listening to some random politico from the Conservative Party today (don't recall name); they seek to remove the problem of drug abuse by removing access.

We are about to officially join the USA in a pointless exercise of violence against our own population.
Where ye lead we shall surely follow /sigh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaguara

One key element of legalization is that you both effectively eliminate the criminal component (since you make it unprofitable for them). If anyone who wanted could grow a Cannibis plant in their backyard, do you think drug dealers could make anything selling it?

Another is that you remove a lot of the very dangerous elements from drug use - dirty needles, drugs being misrepresented, being pushed harder drugs without knowing (A lot of different things are sold as ecstacy...).

Anyway, to quote Princess Leia, . To be honest, it is true. Study after study has shown that treatment and regulation work better than the authoritarian hard-line punishment approach.

But I know this post is 99.9% likely to be a waste of time and energy, but what the heck, maybe someone in here has an open mind.

---

I agree with your post.

I think that legalization + treatment is a good option. Alcohol is a drug, too. People can use it responsibly or not. There are laws in place to punish people who abuse alcohol and hurt other people as a result (DUI, etc.). Why not treat other drugs the same way? Mostly I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana first and then seeing what happens. I know that heroin is physically addictive and I don't know what kind of burden a legalization + treatment program would put on the gov't.

Yes, the black market will still exist. But I think for some drugs (marijuana, for example), people would be more willing to buy it at a store than from a drug dealer and I think that taking business away from drug dealers is a good thing.

Legalize it, tax the :daisy: out of it, and slap a health warning on it like we do with alcohol and cigarettes. Make the penalties for driving while high the same as driving while drunk. In other words, treat it like the drug that is already legal.