Subject:
|
Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Feb 2002 00:50:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
232 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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
You mean like coffee and cocoa? Well they're certainly getting my support, as
I start each morning with a pot of 100% Columbian-- and I sometimes have
chocolate at breakfast.
> and a good system of commerce to get them out of being deemed "3rd
> world".
It seems to me any distinction made between the goods we find acceptable, i.e.,
the coffee and cocoa, and those we don't (cocaine) is completely arbitrary and
capricious.
Can you imagine if we weren't a nation fueled by coffee, and this brown
amphetamine-like liquid were newly introduced in this country? You can bet
there'd be cries to ban it. The only difference is that most people here have
parents who drank coffee, and we grow up to drink it ourselves because it's
always been acceptable.
And actually cocaine has much in common with the above mentioned products-- it
is agricultural rather than manufactured or high-technology, and it is
something suited more to the South American climate than our own. And not to
be cynical, but it is probably in our best interests (and certainly in the best
interest of preserving the environment) that they remain an agriculture-based
economy because look what happens when economies move beyond to manufacturing,
and then to more advanced technologies. Not only will their economies grow in
size, but the disenfranchised in our country will start to whine about yet
another country's inhabitants taking their jobs away.
> But that's also not just as easy as cutting off their drug trade, I
> would argue in counterpoint.
Well, perhaps not as gutsy. I'd say the greatest argument against drug
legalization is Starbuck's. It's scary to think what the equivalent here would
be if cocaine were legal! ;-)
Maggie C.
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
