Anti-drug war advert

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Guynemer


I'm not so sure it will always be a loser, though. I wouldn't know where to begin to look for them, but recent polls have indicated growing sympathy for legalization/decriminalization. I don't know if now is the time to let up on the issue; we may be gaining momentum.

"we may be"

earlier Ramo said

"hopefully"

I think it is about time for the LP to pick a fight where y'all can say

"We are"

and

"Definitely"

Don't you?

[Ramo]

I've never had pot. The worst drug I have with any non-negligible frequency is caffeine (I do drink alcohol very occasionally).

Mac:

Coorelation doesn't imply causation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And I know why you think this is an injustice... the very reason that I thought it was an injustice back in '91 - you are/I was scared of getting busted. So lay off your "I'm just trying to right a horrible wrong" line, admit that you're just concerned with covering your ass, and look at the big picture.

So... that doesn't refer to me? Riiiight.

And the LP's ad was responding to the government's ad. So, no, we didn't bring this up.

[Ramo]

"We are"

and

"Definitely"

Don't you?

Why don't I just vote for a Demopublican, instead of waiting for the LP to become one of their clones?

[mactbone]

I would very much like to hear how drugs would be if at all regulated if we made the now "illegal recreational drugs", legal. That's kind of the funny thing about it, you guys keep saying pot, cocaine, or whatever, ignoring the millions of drugs that pharmaceutical companies have invented. You concentraate on the "recreational" drugs, giving you less of a leg to stand on. If you were really gun-ho about it, you would be demanding that the FDA allow all substances equal legality. Them the question becomes, whose fault is it, if there's a prooduct out there with severe effects. Do we just chalk it up to stupid people, or do we wonder whether everyone in the country should now have a pharmaceutical license, or are there no pharmaceutical licenses, since the proffesion is obsolete, and everyone needs a strong chemistry background to figure out the effects of every drug they decide to take?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Al Queda isn't getting their funding through the American drug trade. Hell, they got more money from the American government than they did from drugs; should we create an advertisement than says "Paying your taxes funds terrorists"?

I'm willing to bet a considerable sum that this is BS. Do you have a source for the U.S. government funding al Quaida?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Really? Then why was the rate of death from alcoholic liver disease lower during prohibition than before or after? Why were hospital admissions for delerium tremens lower?

Perhaps because alchohol was illegal, and people tended to avoid the scrutiny a hospital visit might bring them if possible. You have to admit that there are two good reasons for legalizing drugs in the name of safety:

1) To allow people to seek medical attention for overdoses, seizures, bad trips etc. without them or the friend who brings them to the hospital facing prosecution.

2) To allow quality controls.

[drake]

Alright....everyone keeps saying petroleum is used as a source for terrorist incomes.....I'm not saying it isn't. Does anyone have some good evidence to back up this claim or is just an assumption?

Just because oil comes from the middle east doesnt automatically mean the money is going to terrorism. There are legitimate middle easter companies aren't there(or are they all terrorists over there)?

Some of you have nice arguments....they just aren't realistic, nor practical.

Society lives with rules....it has to to function....now it's all good and well to have your own (I'm a unique snowflake!) ideas. One should. But until the day comes when the majority agrees with you, you're going to have to abide by the rules society sets.

Does this already overmedicated society really need more access to drugs?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Sikander


I'm willing to bet a considerable sum that this is BS. Do you have a source for the U.S. government funding al Quaida?

How many millions did we give to the Taliban, because they were "on our side" in the Drug War? How much of that money do you supposed ended up with Osama bin Laden's Happy Fun Time Brigade?

[Wraith]

--"Hell, any half-baked third party (Reform, Green) gets far more notice than the "true" third party, and that is just a fact."

This has nothing to do with the issues we're pushing. Social Security reform was one of Harry Browne's main planks. He had(has) a detailed plan to totally privatize SS in five years, while using sales of federally held land (nearly half of the land in the US is government owned) to finance private accounts for people who are dependent on it.
He got almost no media coverage. It certainly wasn't because he was also calling for an end to the War on Drugs. Nader was calling for legalization of marijuana and he still got coverage.

Sorry, but the lack of media attention is a whole nother issue. It has nothing to do with WoD and everything to do with a disturbingly statist mainstream media. John Stossel is about the only mainstream reporter you could name that doesn't seem to think that government is the first, best, and only solution to the majority of problems in this country.

As far as the ads go, I think they're a good parody of the government ads (which is what they were meant to be). Their point is at least as valid as the government's, which is the purpose of the ad. To try and get people to think about it a bit.
The WoD is a major problem in the US. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in jail on non-violent drug charges. They and their families present a pretty large demographic...

Wraith
How can they call it tourist season when we're not allowed to shoot them?

[Felch]

Originally posted by MacTBone
I would very much like to hear how drugs would be if at all regulated if we made the now "illegal recreational drugs", legal. That's kind of the funny thing about it, you guys keep saying pot, cocaine, or whatever, ignoring the millions of drugs that pharmaceutical companies have invented. You concentraate on the "recreational" drugs, giving you less of a leg to stand on. If you were really gun-ho about it, you would be demanding that the FDA allow all substances equal legality. Them the question becomes, whose fault is it, if there's a prooduct out there with severe effects. Do we just chalk it up to stupid people, or do we wonder whether everyone in the country should now have a pharmaceutical license, or are there no pharmaceutical licenses, since the proffesion is obsolete, and everyone needs a strong chemistry background to figure out the effects of every drug they decide to take?

It's very simple, the FDA takes on an advisory role. Even as a libertarian, I see nothing wrong with the government requiring people to tell the truth about their products. It is the government's role to protect us from force and fraud, and if a drug company was selling cyanide as a cold remedy, they should be penalized. As long as the company makes it very clear that cyanide's primary role is to kill people however, it should be legal to sell.

The real question that this debate is about, is whether people should be deprived of their rights to liberty and pursuit of happiness just because statists want to impose their will on others. And the obvious American answer, the one Thomas Jefferson and all the signatories to the Declaration of Independence would have given, is no.

[drake]

How do drugs that do nothing but destroy peoples minds and lives factor into the pursuit of happiness and liberty?

And fda warnings? What good are they? People who use drugs don't normally care that much about their bodies to start. Look at cig smokers. Thousands start every day even though they know what it will do to them.

Being in-different to citizens health doesnt sound like a good idea to me. Maybe it does to you guys.

Lets say one of you has a brother whos hooked on crack. He steals money because he cant afford his habit otherwise. He sucks old perverts cocks to make extra money. His been fired 5 times in the last 3 weeks for being stoned on the job and his kidneys are rotting away on a daily basis. One way or another, he'll probably end up dead by 25. Do you

A)respect his right to choose in the name of liberty(!!!hoorah!!!)

or

B)try to help the poor schmuck by putting him in a program and getting him off the streets? (!!!boo!!!)

I'd hope some of you would choose B since a person should be more important than an ideal. In the end of this game we call life, people are all that should matter.

You start allowing your kids access to drugs, and make no doubts, being stupid teenagers, they will try them if they can. People can become addicts on some drugs first use. What happens when you realise in the name of liberty (!!!), that your kid has just become an addict, to a drug that can kill people if used improperly? Do you get mad at the kid? Or do you get mad at yourself for being a ****** and voting to legalize the smack?

The children of tommorow deserve better than to be raised in a world where a kid can go to the store and buy a needle and some heroin, in contrast to his grandfathers gummy bears.

If this american society of ours was a responsible one, I would consider being open to these ideas....but since it is one of the most irresponsible in the history of the world, I fail to see the good in enabling society to **** itself up even more than it already is.

[Killerdaffy]

Originally posted by Sikander


I'm willing to bet a considerable sum that this is BS. Do you have a source for the U.S. government funding al Quaida?

It is well documented in the press (and even by Hollywood : "Rambo III")that the Afghanistani Mujaheddin fighting the Russians in the 80s were funded mostly by the US government. You know any other places where they produce the Stinger missiles so feared by the Russian helicopter pilots in significant numbers? The Taliban and al-Quaeda emerged later from the infighting between the different factions after the Russians left, only taking over the country in 1994.

Anyway, it's not the first time the US funded countries/organizations/regimes that later turned against them. Saddam got money to fight the evil Iranians, who just happen to be the only foreign country to fly F14s. That's why they stopped using war elephants sometime in the 2nd century BC: They certainly do a lot of damage to your enemies when storming in the right direction but the direction turned out to be hard to control.

Maybe some future president will see the light.

[klesh]

everybody now!

Rambozo...
Rambozo...
Rambozo The clown!

[Imran Siddiqui]

How do drugs that do nothing but destroy peoples minds and lives factor into the pursuit of happiness and liberty?

So you are willing to make alcohol illegal?

Lets say one of you has a brother whos hooked on crack. He steals money because he cant afford his habit otherwise. He sucks old perverts cocks to make extra money. His been fired 5 times in the last 3 weeks for being stoned on the job and his kidneys are rotting away on a daily basis. One way or another, he'll probably end up dead by 25. Do you

A)respect his right to choose in the name of liberty(!!!hoorah!!!)

or

B)try to help the poor schmuck by putting him in a program and getting him off the streets? (!!!boo!!!)

Well obviously, you'd try to help him. Just because alcohol is legal and people support its legality doesn't mean that they turn a blind eye when someone is consuming way too much of it.

You've been putting words into the mouths of the pro-drug legalization posters on this thread, and that is one more example of it.

You start allowing your kids access to drugs, and make no doubts, being stupid teenagers, they will try them if they can. People can become addicts on some drugs first use. What happens when you realise in the name of liberty (!!!), that your kid has just become an addict, to a drug that can kill people if used improperly? Do you get mad at the kid? Or do you get mad at yourself for being a ****** and voting to legalize the smack?

There is a 21 age limit on alcohol, and an 18 for cigarettes. Does that mean we are allowing kids access to them?

If my kid has become an addict, then it is his fault for not realizing the dangers and perhaps some of my fault for not educating him fully. I'd attempt to get him some help.

Or do you think that parents of kids that because addicted to alcohol and kicking themselves for being retards for being against Prohibition? I don't think so.