The Problem With The War On Drugs

[Vuk]

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?

[Beirut]

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?

[Strike For The South]

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 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

[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?

[Beirut]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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?

[Louis VI the Fat]

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')

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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

[Greyblades]

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

[ajaxfetish]

I'm not angry, just sad.

Ajax

[Ice]

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.

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.

[Jaguara]

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.

[Beirut]

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.

[Strike For The South]

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

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"

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Meneldil]

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.

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

Thank you kindly.

[Ironside]

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.

[Beirut]

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.

[Subotan]

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

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.

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.

and mandated the death penalty for anyone who sold drugs,

good god

, 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Not every crime deserves the death penalty

No crime deserves the death penalty.

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

Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

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.

(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?

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.

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

Indeed.

(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?

(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.

(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.

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.

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.

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?

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

[Strike For The South]

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Jaguara]

That way vacations lie.

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

Oh wait, you meant...

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

[lars573]

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

[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 ***** off at Monty Python, Firesign Theatre, and George Carlin, that what we were really doing was killing Mexicans and Columbians

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

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

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

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.

[Subotan]

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

If this were true, I would instantly forgive him.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Light a joint and you do kill a Mexican.

Are you serious???

unless you smoked / used some homegrown American drugs

Much of it was.....

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.