I'm not saying it's politically practical, just identifying the problem.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
decline reported in Afghan poppy crop
Collapse
X
-
Another half-solution is if the developed cut our freakin agrisubsidies, so other crops would be more viable in the third world. But that ain't going to happen while the Midwest is in the US, Poland is in the EU, etc."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ramo
Another half-solution is if the developed cut our freakin agrisubsidies, so other crops would be more viable in the third world. But that ain't going to happen while the Midwest is in the US, Poland is in the EU, etc."A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
Comment
-
Yep, heard about that too. There's my "sorta agree with Bush" issue for this year.
Not that it's very likely to happen. 'Specially when he's blowing all the political capital that he has on SS privatization. He said that in 2002, and farm subsidies substantially increased."Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
-Bokonon
Comment
-
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Boris, were you here some months ago, when the successful presidential election took place in Afghanistan? The naysayers response then was, well, you've had the election, but its STILL a failure cause of the growth in poppy cultivation. Afghanistans growing ability to regain control of its own territory seems to me to be a good thing, regardless of where you stand on drug wars.In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.
Comment
-
KidProducing, selling, and taxing drugs is immoral. I never said taking them was, although it's a bad thing to do to yourself.
They cause harm to society. They are immoral people.
If you sell me a bag of pot, what "harm" have you caused to society? None... But how do you define "society"? The members of society? So its immoral to harm members of society? How do you plan on punishing the seller without harming both him and the buyers who want his product? By your definition of immorality it is you who is immoral.
Comment
-
Say we legalized drugs. Save for you crackheads, we all know that the result would be more drug addicion - more crackheads who don't feed their children - more people who don't show up for work, get fired and become homeless - more people stoned out of their mind 24/7, etc. How can that not be immoral? You want to do it for your freedom. So you want something for it. You want others to suffer for what you call freedom. How can that not be immoral?I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Kid, are you going to answer or keep changing the subject? You accused lots of people of immorality and you won't even try to support your slander. That isn't nice.
Say we legalized drugs. Save for you crackheads, we all know that the result would be more drug addicion
more crackheads who don't feed their children - more people who don't show up for work, get fired and become homeless - more people stoned out of their mind 24/7, etc. How can that not be immoral?
You want to do it for your freedom.
You want others to suffer for what you call freedom. How can that not be immoral?
My "utilitarian" argument is that banning drugs has proven worse than the drugs (users who harm others) themselves and the drug war hasn't solved any problems, it has just added more, many more problems...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Berzerker
My "utilitarian" argument is that banning drugs has proven worse than the drugs (users who harm others) themselves and the drug war hasn't solved any problems, it has just added more, many more problems...Last edited by Kidlicious; February 9, 2005, 01:21.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Legalizing drugs .
YES, by banning drugs, you decrease the use of the drug (shift to the left in supply, which results in a dramatic increase in price and less quantity consumed... kind of like a monopoly situation), but at what cost? I'd say the externalities of banning drug use outweighs the lesser use.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
KidYou can not be free from the cost of others using drugs. You pay one way or the other.
The moral response is to outlaw doing this bad thing to another person, not punish millions of people who did nothing to the victim. Imagine if we punished people who dont use drugs because some people who dont use drugs commit murder. Hey, lets punish all black people because some black people commit murder. Uh oh, some white people commit murder too, we'll have to punish white people now. Follow your "logic" to its conclusion if you cannot see the immorality of your argument.
As for the costs, do you realize we've squandered over a trillion dollars fighting the current drug war? What did we get for our money? About 3 million people jamming the legal system because you're mad at a crackhead. Higher homicide rates that would have been even higher than under alcohol prohibition if not for modern medicine (check the average over the last 35 years). We're not just throwing wads of money at the government, its being used to expand control over us in all sorts of ways, albeit the new war on terrorism has supplanted drugs as a reason to increase control.
Ever hear of early release programs? This is an attempt to alleviate the jampacked legal system by releasing people before they serve their time. Why? To make room for all the drug "dealers". Plea bargains have also been expanded so we are literally releasing real criminals out onto the streets to make room for pot smokers.
Then there'e the "fact" that prior to 9/11 we were expending a huge chunk of our law enforcement resources chasing drug users when we could have been using those resources to find missing children, stop terrorists, catch rapists and murderers, etc.
Freedom is only one factor in the overall equation. If you legalize drugs there will be more drug addicts, and that imposes a cost on all of us.
For example, our economy will do more poorly, because drug addicts will miss work.
If you maintain the criminal status of drugs there will be a cost too, but it will be less.
And saying that we should allow people to harm themselves just doesn't make any sense. There is no benefit in that for them. Drug addicts can't even decide what's best for themselves because they are sick.
Freedom is not the only thing that they want. It isn't the only thing most people want. Libertarians are alone in that regard.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
Say we legalized drugs. Save for you crackheads, we all know that the result would be more drug addicion -
Why aren't Portugal and the Netherlands in complete decrepitude right now?
Oh and if you want more stats - there was a study done on about 1000 American soldiers who were regular heroine users in Vietnam.
How many of them came back to America addicted? 4%.In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Legalizing drugs .
YES, by banning drugs, you decrease the use of the drug (shift to the left in supply, which results in a dramatic increase in price and less quantity consumed... kind of like a monopoly situation), but at what cost? I'd say the externalities of banning drug use outweighs the lesser use.In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid
Kid, listen (read ) this very closely because your argument is immoral.
You are using a generalisation to "justify" hurting people. We don't say murder is immoral because we pay for it one way or another. It is immoral because there is a victim and a perpetrator and that perpetrator committed an immoral act, not the guy down the street who smokes pot. We don't say he is immoral because someone else committed murder. But that is the essence of your argument, you say I should be punished for using or selling a drug because somebody else did something bad to another person.
The moral response is to outlaw doing this bad thing to another person, not punish millions of people who did nothing to the victim. Imagine if we punished people who dont use drugs because some people who dont use drugs commit murder. Hey, lets punish all black people because some black people commit murder. Uh oh, some white people commit murder too, we'll have to punish white people now. Follow your "logic" to its conclusion if you cannot see the immorality of your argument.
As for the costs, do you realize we've squandered over a trillion dollars fighting the current drug war? What did we get for our money? About 3 million people jamming the legal system because you're mad at a crackhead. Higher homicide rates that would have been even higher than under alcohol prohibition if not for modern medicine (check the average over the last 35 years). We're not just throwing wads of money at the government, its being used to expand control over us in all sorts of ways, albeit the new war on terrorism has supplanted drugs as a reason to increase control.
Ever hear of early release programs? This is an attempt to alleviate the jampacked legal system by releasing people before they serve their time. Why? To make room for all the drug "dealers". Plea bargains have also been expanded so we are literally releasing real criminals out onto the streets to make room for pot smokers.
Then there'e the "fact" that prior to 9/11 we were expending a huge chunk of our law enforcement resources chasing drug users when we could have been using those resources to find missing children, stop terrorists, catch rapists and murderers, etc.
It's just your opinion that the money was squandered.
No Kid, they'll be fired and replaced with people who aren't addicted just like now. That's how the marketplace restricts certain behaviors. But I see you would rather sacrifice freedom and morality for state production too... Is that fascism or communism, I keep getting them mixed up.
But most drug users are not addicts, Kid. They are innocent of this "crime" you see in addiction and they will be punished anyway. And you don't speak for others, you don't get to decide what I value or what benefits me. Freedom means I get to decide that, not you. Totalitarianism means you get to decide for the rest of us.
Its true many people, even most possibly, want to decide how others live. Just don't complain when the freedoms you cherish are taken away, adding hypocrisy to the injuries you want to inflict on others is like pouring salt in their wounds.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Oncle Boris
As to the first part of your argument... I suppose that the total quantity consumed might rise, but the percentage of people who are drug users doesn't.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
Comment