Subject:
|
Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Feb 2002 23:21:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
224 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> The White House Office of Drug Control Policy has started an ad campaign in
> which they are attempting a clever diversion through the logical
> equivalent of smoke and mirrors. Their assertion is that by consuming product
> (cocaine) from places like Colombia, you are promoting terrorism by providing
> the economy needed by violent drug lords to commit all manner of atrocities.
>
> The truth is that, ...[snip]... If cocaine bacame legal in the US, violence
> in Colombia would settle. The 30-year (or whatever) revolution funded by the
> drug lords would run out of steam with no new monetary influx.
I'd say the truth is that legalization isn't associable. It might be more
correct to say that if you support illegal drug use, you support terrorism,
albeit inderectly. Whether or not its legalization would change the
terrorist state isn't easily determinable-- at least not from what I know,
although I'd be tempted to agree with you on what knowledge I have.
> 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. It is a twisted attempt to dehumanize
> those who choose to self-medicate.
Now... is THIS what the ad campaign is saying? Or are they saying that being
in favor of drug legalization is indirectly supporting terrorism? Because
it's actually correct, I'd argue. It's just that legalizing drugs is another
way around the support for terrorism, short of stopping illegal drug use,
one might say.
One might also argue that by legalizing drugs, production of drug products
would give more money to these third world countries & factions, and might
support them in other causes in which they would subscribe to terrorism? IE
that these people, when given money, use terrorism, so take their money
away. I don't think I'd support the arguement, but I could see it being
viable. The impetus behind this being ultimately one I'd *personally* agree
with, which would be to get 3rd world countries producing actually valuable
assets and a good system of commerce to get them out of being deemed "3rd
world". But that's also not just as easy as cutting off their drug trade, I
would argue in counterpoint.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
