The New Anti-Drug Commercial

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you are giving profits to Philip Morris, who will make more cigs and more advertisizing, getting more smokers, killing more people.

Shall we put smoker to blame for killing more people as well?

[Maj]

But Weed.....most of our stuff comes from Canada these days

The increased security along the border means most of the bud originally destined to the U.S. is now being diffused across Canada meaning a better quality product at lower prices.

[DanS]

Only a tenuous responsibility in that instance. By buying a pack of cigarettes, you are enabling further tobacco advertising.

But in the instance of drugs, the responsibility is much clearer. If you buy cocaine or crack cocaine, you directly trigger a long list of actions to supply you that cocaine, all of which are necessarily on the other side of the law.

[muppet]

Originally posted by faded glory

But Weed.....most of our stuff comes from Canada these days

Get me outta here!

Head Office just confirmed -- I'll be back in LA before the bombers get to Vancouver!

[uh Clem]

If you buy cocaine or crack cocaine, you directly trigger a long list of actions to supply you that cocaine, all of which are necessarily on the other side of the law.

Begs the question. You're assuming the inherent criminality of using cocaine.

If somebody buys crack, for instance, they are responsible for all of the acts down the line that got them that crack.

The reponsibility lies equally with the criminalizers.

[DanS]

"You're assuming the inherent criminality of using cocaine."

Yes, it's illegal. Because of the ill effects of using it on a personal and societal basis, and the reasons for which it's used, I don't contemplate it ever being legal.

"The reponsibility lies equally with the criminalizers."

That sounds like a BS whitewash of drug use to me, clem. The representatives of the people have merely codified the people's wishes. These wishes seem reasonable because of the ill effects of drug use. Nobody wants crack heads taking over the neighborhood.

[Berzerker]

Faded Glory -

The irony is corn doesnt kill

Yes it does, ever hear of corn-based alcohol and ethanol? Then there are other crops - tobacco, peanuts, hops, sugar, etc., etc., etc... There will always be a percentage of people who die from a wide variety of foods and drugs, and many of the people who die from illegal drugs are killed by impurities and lack of quality control. Do you see the irony of your argument?

and then sell itself for 1000% of its real value. Which brings a nice net profit to the dealers.

The reason illegal drugs sell for so much is because they are illegal - care to blame yourself for a policy that enriches terrorists? I don't see you guys accusing Democrats, Republicans, and taxpayers for funding the Taliban. Why is that?

Leftist guerilla's in Columbia are quite known for there Car-Bombs in Bogota, Kidnapping western journalists for ransom and Crimes against small villages.

Then punish leftist guerillas.

So ones ok, we should allow them all? Fuzzy Logic......

We aren't the ones who claim alcohol and tobacco should be legal while roughly 1/2 million people die every year from them and all the other drugs with a comparatively miniscule death toll should be banned. That's called hypocrisy...

Emporer Fabulous -

Buyers = Demand

Demand = Necessity to Supply

Supply = Supporting Drug Lords

Support = Drug Lords Supply money to bad guys

Supply = Money to use to Fake IDs, etc.

Makes sense to me...

And why do "drug lords" (FARMERS) need to support the bad guys? Because governments have made drugs illegal and instead of defending them against the bad guys, attack them! Make sense now?

Jon Miller -

the apparatus of illegal drug smuggling is used by terrorists too

which I think is the point

Because farmers are encouraged to grow these crops because of the profits resulting from their illegality. This "apparatus" was created by governments, not farmers and users. Terrorists use many sources of revenue, should money, taxes, oil, stocks, diamonds, and all the other revenue sources be banned?

Osweld -

It's not an issue about whether they use them to hurt others - I think that the commerical was saying they fund terrorism with profits from the drug buisness. I haven't seen the commerical, but that's what it seems like to me.

The "illegal" drug business. And they have at least 2 commercials, the second one showed alleged drug users confessing how they helped murder judges and cops among others and telling us how using drugs is not a consensual act. This "logic" would mean the terrorists could "justify" their crimes because the US is a major supplier of alcohol - a product banned in several Muslim countries for the same reasons we ban other drugs.

Dinodoc -

That depends on the drugs you choose to use.

No, even if I used heroin, I would not be responsible for the bad people who use heroin's illegality to fund other activities. It's the illegality of the product that has created the situation. If I sell you my car and use the money to buy a gun to murder my neighbor, are you responsible?

Now, truely was your problem really the fact that they chose to make no distinction for your favorite pharmacutical of choice?

First, I don't use illegal drugs. And nope, just pointing out how they tried to smear everyone who uses drugs they don't like based on people who use only heroin/opium.

Or are you really so naive as to believe that "bad" people don't sell illegal things?

Care for some Enron stock? Does this mean people who buy stock stole from those who bought Enron?

Afghanistan's main export is opium, not oil.

Who do you think funded the Taliban and OBL? In addition to the millions "our" politicians sent, the Saudis and Pakistanis supplied arms and money - from oil among other revenue sources. When Indonesia (?) was slaughtering people in E Timor, they did so with weapons we sold them...and we never saw ads from the government telling those of us who pay taxes that we were helping murder those people by paying taxes.

Andrew -

"Ever wonder where terrorists get their money? If you buy gas, it could be from you."

Yup, same "logic".

[Imran Siddiqui]

Only a tenuous responsibility in that instance. By buying a pack of cigarettes, you are enabling further tobacco advertising.

But in the instance of drugs, the responsibility is much clearer. If you buy cocaine or crack cocaine, you directly trigger a long list of actions to supply you that cocaine, all of which are necessarily on the other side of the law.

Only because you want one to stay legal and the other stay illegal. Your biases are clearly showing through.

You neglect that if cocaine were legal, there would be no funding of the Marxist rebels in Colombia by drugs. It is BECAUSE of its illegality that the rebels get their money. The government is responsible for the killings in Columbia, not the people.

That sounds like a BS whitewash of drug use to me, clem. The representatives of the people have merely codified the people's wishes. These wishes seem reasonable because of the ill effects of drug use. Nobody wants crack heads taking over the neighborhood.

Nobody wants alcholics taking over the neighborhood. Let's illegalize alcohol!

Um... let's not. I believe in freedom.

[DanS]

Imran: You can continue to paint a utopia where drug use it totally legal, but you ignore the fact that in no instance would drugs like crack cocaine be safe. Therefore, distribution for recreational use would be illegal in any event.

Re making sales of alcohol illegal, there's nothing stopping you. It is prohibited in many jurisdictions. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Ramo]

Yes, it's illegal. Because of the ill effects of using it on a personal and societal basis, and the reasons for which it's used, I don't contemplate it ever being legal.

I take it that you're unfamiliar with Portugal's drug laws.

[uh Clem]

Yes, it's illegal. Because of the ill effects of using it on a personal and societal basis, and the reasons for which it's used, I don't contemplate it ever being legal.

Actually, it was legal once, & for a long time.

If users are responsible for "all of the acts down the line," then it's fair to hold criminalizers to the same standard. As a criminalizer, you recommend restricting drug distribution to the most violent, ruthless, and lawless elements in society. Hence, you're responsible for what happens.

[DanS]

Clem: You fall under the same spell as Imran. You can't get it through your thick skulls that this stuff can only be sold through illegal channels on a mass basis. Even tobacco is having a tough go of it as a legal business, and it is much more ingrained in society than drug use.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can continue to paint a utopia where drug use it totally legal, but you ignore the fact that in no instance would drugs like crack cocaine be safe.

There are no instances that tobacco is safe. That doesn't stop them from selling that.

The only way to stop this 'mass' sale of illegal drugs is to totally legalize them. There is no reason for making them illegal, except that the government thinks it should control what people can do with their own bodies.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Who do you think funded the Taliban and OBL?

For the most part, OBL himself and his connections in Saudia Arabia as you stated. He is a multi-millionaire from the Arab equivilant to the Rockefellers after all.

It's the illegality of the product that has created the situation.

Of course it has. That still doesn't change the truth value of the statement that the drug trade funds both criminal & terrorist organizations though. The only difference is the conclusions you draw from such a statement. The commercial drew the wrong one.

[Bereta_Eder]

I think it's wrong to load up a junky with guilt like that.

He has his problems, he uses drugs and then he thinks that he is helping terrorists by doing it.

So he gets even more depressed and has to use even more drugs. And so on and so forth.


Vicious circle this ad.