Anti-drug war advert

[Ramo]

Drake, most drug users don't get their drugs from the AUC, et al. What drug users do is buy their drugs from the guy down the street, increasing the demand, indirectly insuring people like Binny get more supplies. What you're suggesting is to stop buying drugs from the guy down the street because he's in the same business as terrorists.

Something analagous would be to stop using all cheese because Osama runs Kraft.

[drake]

Funneling money to terrorism is in place in all sorts of legitimate businesses. There certainly isn't a failsafe way for consumers to know exactly where the dollar they spent on gas is going. Hell it's impossible.

But in buying drugs, the line is a little clearer. The buyer knows the dealer is a criminal right off the bat. They know that they have a disregard for the law. The chances of an oil provider being linked to terrorism are probably not as good as the chances that a drug dealer are.

It comes down to this. Criminals corrupt this country and when you buy drugs, you are, in your own little way, helping to corrupt the country. You are legitimizing criminal actions.

So Imran, lets say there is no drug war. The inflated prices the poor addicts have to pay now are lowered. The rate for a bag of coke is 100 bucks instead of 1000. So instead of 1000 dollars going to the terrorist, only 100 is going. It will take the terrorist 10x more product to buy that explosive material. In the end, the terrorist can't afford as much explosives as he wanted to, so he can only kill 10 jews instead of 100. Now, will knowing that the buyers "saved" 90 people help their conscience? After all, 10 jews isn't really that many. One has to be able to get high and have fun after all right?

Pointing the finger at someone else is the typical selfish american thing to do. Never taking responsibility for anything.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course. Unless you believe in terrorism. If a company is known to use shady practices, like having 5 year old kids work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop to creat huge profits, and you don't believe with this practice, and yet you still buy from them, you are a hypocrite.

No, you are a capitalist .

It comes down to this. Criminals corrupt this country and when you buy drugs, you are, in your own little way, helping to corrupt the country. You are legitimizing criminal actions.

If you don't believe the action should be criminal then you are making a political statement .

So Imran, lets say there is no drug war. The inflated prices the poor addicts have to pay now are lowered. The rate for a bag of coke is 100 bucks instead of 1000. So instead of 1000 dollars going to the terrorist, only 100 is going. It will take the terrorist 10x more product to buy that explosive material. In the end, the terrorist can't afford as much explosives as he wanted to, so he can only kill 10 jews instead of 100. Now, will knowing that the buyers "saved" 90 people help their conscience? After all, 10 jews isn't really that many. One has to be able to get high and have fun after all right?

You have failed economics, haven't you? If the drug is legal, and price falls, then there is no oppertunity for terrorist groups to make money. Since the drug is legal, companies will go through legal ways to get the drug. The terrorists can't take advantage of the fact that there is an artifical lowering supply by the government. Then, you'll see Merck (or whoever) going into these areas themselves and collecting the substance for themselves.

The only reason terrorists deal in this trade is because of the illegality of it. They can be one of the only suppliers in the market, giving them high profits. If the market was opened, the terrorists would be forced from business.

[drake]

Something analagous would be to stop using all cheese because Osama runs Kraft.

If I knew all cheese was linked to terrorism I'd certainly quit buying it. When someone buys a hard drug (as pointed out, most likely not dope), they should consciously be aware that their money isn't going to the special olympics fund. They shouldn't be so naive and careless. It shows a good deal of disregard for others. Selfishness is a trait that is probably pretty common among addicts, so it's certainly not surprising.

[Imran Siddiqui]

ad hominem attacks don't make your argument, drake.

[Ramo]

Petroleum is clearly linked to terrorism.

Do you run an electric car? Or are you a hypocrite?

[mactbone]

Who then will take responsibility for the actions of those who are high? The ones that become violent when high? The ones that harm themselves and especially the ones that harm others?

Personally, I think that alcohol should be regulated. WRT to tobaccoo, I have never heard of a person harming another person while smoking. Not that I'm gleeful about it, but I figure smoker's are just killing themselves (I know about second hand smoke, but believe me when I say that nowadays the only reason you are near a smoker is because you have a good reason).

[Ramo]

If I knew all cheese was linked to terrorism I'd certainly quit buying it.

All cheese? Can you back up the assertion that all hard drugs are linked to terrorism?

[mactbone]

BTW, is it that easy to get drugs that even if you just wanted to experiment but were fearful of getting caught, you would have an easy time getting any drug you wanted?

Sorry, but the more accesible something is the more it becomes acceptable, and the more people use it.

[JohnT]

And now, for a dissenting opinion...

Once again the LP aggressively campaigns on a non-winning issue. Why don't they do this for things that matter to people other than the young - like Social Security reform/privatization, tax reform, hell, even zoning law reform would get them more votes. But no, they waste time, effort, and press to try to convince America's parents that it is ok for little Johnny and Jane to legally buy heroin.

Gah! It's enough to make me retch!

[Dis]

whether it is legal or illegal in the U.S. doesn't change the fact that opium is a major resource of Afghanistant. So terrorists will profit from it if it is legal or illegal in the U.S. Just not as much.

The same can be said for Columbia. The fact that it is illegal doesn't change the fact that these countries have ideal environmental conditions for producing these drugs.

So the way to correct that would be to fix Columbia's and Afghanistan's goverments. The drug would have to be legal to produce in those countries. And corruption that spill money to terrorists would have to be virtually eliminated.

[drake]

I was using the presumption that coke would never be legal (as it won't). I was talking about the war on drugs being cut down, going back down to pre-drug war levels. (Therefore pressure on dealers and suppliers eases up and the cost of importing drugs into a country are significantly lowered). If it's easy to bring drugs into the country (as it was in the past), the cost will go down presumably. (Get it?)

We were playing a little hypothetical game, and you failed to play Imran. I was just asking, if you knew (hypothetically now) that your money helped kill even one person, would that be ok? (It's ok, it's a hypothetical question!) Would you continue supporting your indulgence even though you knew others could die at your expense?

So why don't you play this time, and the person you try playing is someone who cares about other things than themselves. (I know it's a strecth but you can do it Imran, I have faith )

[Ramo]

Who then will take responsibility for the actions of those who are high? The ones that become violent when high? The ones that harm themselves

Which is their own free choice. They could do as much by dropping a brick on their feet.

and especially the ones that harm others?

Ever hear of a prison?

(I know about second hand smoke, but believe me when I say that nowadays the only reason you are near a smoker is because you have a good reason).

???

BTW, is it that easy to get drugs that even if you just wanted to experiment but were fearful of getting caught, you would have an easy time getting any drug you wanted?

Sorry, but the more accesible something is the more it becomes acceptable, and the more people use it.

Alcohol usage substancially decreased after Prohibition ended.

[Dis]

I doubt alcohol usage has decreased. Even if that is per capita. But in any case the population has increased, and so has binge drinking.

[Ramo]

I doubt alcohol usage has decreased. Even if that is per capita. But in any case the population has increased, and so has binge drinking.

In years directly following the repeal of Prohibition the rate of alcohol usage went way down. I don't know the alcohol statistics about today, but they aren't particularly relevant anyways.