Anti-drug war advert

[Berzerker]

MacTBone -

Dino - I'll admit that it has good effects, but there's a reason why it isn't prescribed to anyone who wants it. There are side effects, and they are harmful.

That reason is it's illegal! And virtually everything has harmful side effects. But of all the medicines, marijuana is among the most benign. People have died from aspirin, not from pot.

Well, know that's odd, I've never heard of marijuana saving someone's life...

I was talking about all drugs, or do you think the FDA only concerns itself with pot?

come to think of it, I don't think that ecstacy, heroin, or cocaine have ever literally saved someone's life. I know that they may have soothed a patient, but that's not a direct link.

The people who are pushing for doctor assisted suicide use the fact people in alot of pain are being under medicated because doctors are afraid of the DEA coming down on them. Heroin/morphine is about the best pain reliever there is, but if you can't get it even though it's legal when administered by a doctor, death becomes a viable alternative. But I'm not sure why your standard now is life saving and doesn't include other factors involving quality of life. If you have AIDS and are suffering from the "wasting" syndrome, pot can save your life by stimulating appetite.

I also have to question your continuing thinking that drugs that are illegal are all "recreational". There are many drugs that the FDA won't approve because of harmful side effects.

And they shouldn't be doing this either, but pot's side effects are minimal.

Not only that, those "recreational" drugs, in almost all cases have a direct link to harming people.

Some do, some don't. So what? You can drop a brick on your head, that doesn't mean handling bricks should be illegal.

What you're effectively saying, is that we should all be given loaded guns, and if we fail to read the warnings, and instructions, it's our responsibility when we shoot ourselves.

If you buy the gun and shoot yourself, oh well. Are you now for banning guns because they can be deadly?

Well, how do we decide if a warning is strong enough? Or if instructions are clear enough?

If you can't read english, maybe you shouldn't ingest unknown substances.

What if we think they work, but then find out that many people end up killing themselves, do we just ignore them?

Then we do what we do with any product, sue.

Prevention. That is why drugs are illegal. Not because some senator was a stick-in-the-mud.

Then you shouldn't complain when "government" runs your entire life because your diet, exercise routine, and sleep habits, etc., might be harmful.

Dinodoc -

What deception? They've had a warning label on thier products for decades calling the stuff poison.

The tobacco companies have been lying about their products for decades, it was these lies that lawyers used to get settlements. The fact the government started requiring labels more recently didn't help since many smokers started long before the warnings.

[Felch]

Actually Mac, the only side effects are those typically associated with smoking any substance, combined with those of most intoxicants. That is to say, that exposure to the smoke increases cancer risks, and such, and that it is dangerous to operate machinery while high, in addition to poor short term memory.

And keep in mind that many drugs and therapies are offered that pose significant danger to the patient's health. However, because these measures have more good aspects than bad, they are still permitted.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Guynemer

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?

You are perhaps not aware of the direction of the cash flow between al Quaida and the Taliban. The Taliban received funds while al Quaida donated them. While I agree that giving money to the Taliban was not a good idea, it is not the same thing as giving money to al Quaida.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Killerdaffy
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.

The Mujaheddin were funded mostly by contributions of friendly Arab and Muslim governments and individuals. The U.S. did provide a fair amount of funding, stingers and training to use them, and intelligence. The Chinese provided huge numbers of weapons, and the Pakistanis provided logistical support and intelligence. The Iranians also provided financial and material support.

All of this support was funnelled through many different groups, each representing an ethnic group, a region or a political or religious group. It was a vast web of alliances which only held itself together (to the extent it did) to fight the greater threat of the Soviet Union. The nascent al Quiada was formed late in the war with Saudi and other (mostly private) Gulf money. The Taliban did not exist until after the war (and U.S. involvement) was over. The press gets it wrong 9 times out of 10 because they are too lazy to see the effort to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan for what it was, a remarkably diverse and large number of groups held together for a single goal. When the Soviets pulled out and their puppet regime collapsed the differences between the various Muj groups devolved into incessant warfare.

The Taliban was formed mostly from the children of Afghan refugees who had fled the fighting. These children were schooled in Pakistan in religious schools, and were heavily influenced by the Pakistani government, who supplied them lavishly with weapons when they made their move several years into the civil war. Their numbers were butressed by the addition of a fairly large number of Pakistani fundamentalists, and the number of foreign Taliban elements continued to grow as time passed. They managed to sweep aside the weakened main parties to the civil war with the exception of the Northern Alliance, which managed to hold on to a small corner of Afghanistan along the borders of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, from which they received support and supplies originating in Russia and Iran.

Perhaps you can show me a shred of evidence that U.S. money ever was sent to al Quaida. I have never seen any evidence of this, but I have seen numerous people who were part of the U.S. operation to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan say the opposite, including the man who headed the effort for 6 years (see the Frontline special on PBS to see him interviewed on camera).

As far as I know no U.S. supplied weapon has ever caused a casualty to an American in the region, in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, even though we have fought with all three. Perhaps you can show me some evidence that our weapons have come back to bite us here. A 1970's era F-14 without spare parts or advanced missles is a waste of hangar space when contemplating it's usefulness against the U.S.

[Berzerker]

When we went to war against the Taliban, we were told Al Qaeda was an integral part of the Taliban providing a key defensive component against the N Alliance, therefore, money given to the Taliban was used for Al Qaeda. Money is fungible, give money to the Taliban and they can afford to give money to Al Qaeda...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Berzerker
When we went to war against the Taliban, we were told Al Qaeda was an integral part of the Taliban providing a key defensive component against the N Alliance, therefore, money given to the Taliban was used for Al Qaeda. Money is fungible, give money to the Taliban and they can afford to give money to Al Qaeda...

Al Quaida did not provide a key defensive component for the Taliban or against the Northern Alliance. They did provide lots of money in exchange for a base of operations. While I agree that these two groups had similar goals in many ways and were obviously allied, the amount of force al Quaida could provide to the Taliban was miniscule, as was the amount of money the Taliban could provide al Quaida.

I agree that giving any money to the Taliban strengthened it, and to a much lesser degree al Quaida. Even the Clinton administration realized their folly, and cut the program off after a year (IIRC) and only a modest amount (by nation state standards) of money exchanged hands.

[drake]

The Saudis funded OBL and the Taliban. Where do you think they got the money?

I'm trying to learn a thing or two...I was looking for a link to a documented story........

What saudis? The Saudi government? Saudi terrorists? Who? Help me out here.

edit: Never mind, I did my own research.....and found how ignorant I was on the subject.

Seems the link between oil and terrorism is pretty un-deniable......but what to do???? How does a nation dependent on oil cope with such a situation?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by drake


I'm trying to learn a thing or two...I was looking for a link to a documented story........

What saudis? The Saudi government? Saudi terrorists? Who? Help me out here.

This is actually kind of a sticky question due to the lack of seperation between the (large) Royal family and the Saudi state. OBL got most of his support from wealthy individuals. He was declared persona non grata by the state, but interestingly some of these wealthy individuals are members of the Royal family (which is the state to a large extent). Not all of his support came from Saudi Arabia by any means, but most of the money came from individuals in the oil rich states of Arabia. His 'martyr' supply was a lot more diffuse.