Subject:
|
Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:11:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
268 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > 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.
If our federal government does things that encourage terrorism (and I think it
does) aren't we also supporting terrorism? I think that one of the things that
we do to cause terrorism to flourish is implement policy that rewards violence.
One of those things is the price boosting of cocaine caused by our laws. And
it kind of sounds like you agree.
So are we supporting terrorism by both supporting legalization and the status
quo? It doesn't seem like it. It seems like people are doing their thing
without regard to what the money funds, and the fact that our public policy
pumps huge money into the drug cartels is the real problem.
> 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.
Let's try it and see! At least then we'd be presented with more direct
problems to solve.
> > 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?
I didn't see the comercials...I only heard snippets on NPR Monday morning. It
sounded to me like they had actors portraying drug users who were confessing
that they funded daddy-abduction and stuff through their economic support of
the drug trade.
To the best of my knowledge, they didn't say anything about being in favor of
legalization. Can somone who saw the ads comment here?
> One might also argue that by legalizing drugs, production of drug products
> would give more money to these third world countries & factions,
One might argue that the moon is green cheese. I don't see how it matters.
Clearly the money flowing out of the US and into drug producing countries would
decrease if the cost of importation decreased unless you assume that the demand
would wildly increase (like 1,000 times -- which is the markup on cocaine as I
understand it). I don't think that's the case, but I guess maybe.
Another good that would come of legalization, is that doctors would have easier
access to cocaine as an appropriate treatment. They can prescribe it, but I
understand that it is shied away from due to the stigma.
> 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.
I don't get it. What does it mean for you to see it being viable and yet not
support it? The moon isn't green cheese. If someone makes an argument that
doesn't float, then sink it and move on. The fact is that some people
(individuals and groups) would suppport terrorism as a means to an end under
some circumstances. Heck, two weeks before 9/11 _I_ suggested that terrorism
was appropriate under certain circumstances. Why not remove their desire to
act thus, by providing them positive outlets for their needs? Those folks
don't do 'bad' because they're devils, just because it makes economic sense (or
so they percieve) and they don't have the same aesthetic against such actions
that most of us have -- to the degree that we do, at least.
> 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.
I bet it's easier than we are led to believe. We'd just have to be willing to
pay for it.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
