Subject:
|
Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Feb 2002 17:55:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
207 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > The truth is that, there is enough money in cocaine production that people • are
> > willing to be bad, only because the great and wealthy nations of the world • have
> > artificially inflated the price of the product through trade barriers. If
> > cocaine bacame legal in the US, violence in Colombia would settle.
>
> One might *suppose* the violence would settle, but we have no way of knowing
> that, much less calling that hypothetical "truth".
With which part of what I think is obviously the truth do you disagree? My
statement breaks down into:
A) The price of coke is inflated above the consumer-market value.
B) People are motivated to be 'bad' when it is highly profitable.
C) The inflation is caused by the illegality of obtaining the commodity.
D) The illegality of cocaine generates the high profits driving the 'badness.'
I then go on to suggest that if you remove the economic underpinnings of
Colombian terror, that the terror will subside. Did I get something wrong, or
do you think that the people involved are devilishly wicked rather than just
greedy enough to act wicked?
> How many Americans would you suppose could use a highly addictive drug such as
> cocaine "responsibly"?
I don't know the stats. My small sample annecdotes suggests that about 80% of
teenagers can use cocaine responsibly. If that is even close to
representative, we can expect similar percentages among the popualtion at
large. But I think that most people would continue to avoid it as a dangerous
medicine.
> If cocaine were legalized, I suspect we'd have a lot of drug-related
> violence (refer to stats on alcohol-related deaths in this country)
> in *this* country.
Drug-related deaths, or violence? I mean, people might get hopped up and have
heart attacks, but that's not violence. The stats that I'm dredging vary
widely depending on what's being examined. The CDC notes that out of
11,806,737 deaths in one decade, 26,373 died from having too much alcohol in
their system. (That's one fifth of one percent.) But there are also certainly
many drunk driving deaths, which concern me lots more.
Another source suggests 81,000 deaths per year are alcohol related. (Compared
to 430,000 for smoking -- the only greater category). I guess that if about
2.6K die per year from alcohol poisonging then this 81K figure must include
everything. That's out of 632,000 deaths -- 12%.
Which stats were you using? And what do they have to do with cocaine related
violence?
> First let me see U.S. citizens use alcohol responsibly, then we can talk about
> coke....
But you do. Virtually everyone who drinks does so in a more or less
responsible manner. Though, it might be tough to define responsible so that
everyone was happy. I am most concerned that people not use substances that
will so greatly impair their judgement that they will inflict themselves on me,
one way or another. I drink (very) roughly five drinks per week. maybe one
day of each week I have more than one drink (meaning a beer, glass of wine,
mixed drink, etc.) Only if I pass my own personal criteria (only had one drink
recently and can't feel it at all) will I drive. Does that count as
responsible?
> > These advertisements constitute an outrageous attempt to place the blame for
> > third-world terror (which rests clearly on the laps of anti-drug folks (in • this
> > case)) on the drug consumers.
>
> Laugh. Talk about outrageous! The blame for third-world terror rests soley • on
> the slimes who inflict the violence. Period. They sometimes happen to get
> their funding from slimes such as drug lords. Whether your coke costs $1,000 • a
> line or $10, you still are lining their pockets.
That's like saying that a person who hires a hit man doesn't share
responsibility for the death of the victim. It is absurd. Certainly, those
who are the direct cause of violence are most clearly at blame, but those who
push them into circumstances that encourage violence are also to blame.
With me "(in this case)" I was attempting to demonstrate that I don't think
that all terror is caused by this situation with drugs -- though a case might
be made that it is always caused by oppression of one kind or another.
> > It is a twisted attempt to dehumanize those who
> > choose to self-medicate.
> >
> > When will the madness end?
>
> Legalize coke, and I'll show you where it will begin...
Uh huh. You can keep saying that, but I don't see it. How many coke users
have you watched become insanely violent for no reason? I'm guessing none. I
don't currently know any cocaine users (that I know of) but in high school
they were common and rarely did I hear of anyone getting out of hand. So if it
works out non-violently illegal, why would that change with legalization?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
37 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
