Subject:
|
Re: If you oppose drug legalization, you support terrorism!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:55:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
253 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> If our federal government does things that encourage terrorism (and I think it
> does) aren't we also supporting terrorism?
Indirectly, yes. Just like the whole vegetarian debate. I don't directly
support animals being treated brutally, but I won't stop eating meat, either.
> So are we supporting terrorism by both supporting legalization and the status
> quo?
I guess it would depend on your reasoning for supporting the legalization,
but I don't think I can come up with a motive that would in turn support
terrorism, so no :)
> Let's try it and see! At least then we'd be presented with more direct
> problems to solve.
One of the problems I've mentioned before was agriculture-- not that I
personally think it's much of a problem. But essentially the argument was
that if it becomes legal, then farmers start growing it. A crop full of
cocaine being much more lucrative than one of corn. And hence corn gets in
short supply, goes up in price, and then we all hate having to pay $5.00 for
a bag of Fritos. Of course it's just an easy jump ahead to say "it's legal
to use & sell, just not to grow," which just about solves that problem. But
only for this country.
> > 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.
Well, the argument would be that these 3rd world drug lords are already
going through illegal means, and would continue, and might support
terrorism, such that legalizing drugs would only increase their profits and
support their actions. But I don't go for that argument.
> I don't get it. What does it mean for you to see it being viable and yet not
> support it?
I can't disprove the argument, but I don't support it.
> The moon isn't green cheese. If someone makes an argument that
> doesn't float, then sink it and move on.
"If you were given a monkey, you would feed it bubble gum."
"Bill Clinton loves Hillary Clinton."
"The Earth is exactly 5,103,387,498.8579871112 years old."
"My envisionment of spiritual truth is incorrect."
Do the arguments float? Do you agree with them? Can you, personally, here
and now, sink them? Just because I find an particular point viable doesn't
mean I'll support it. The reverse, however, should be true: if I support an
argument, it DOES mean it should be viable.
I can't invalidate the argument that people who are presently drug lords
would continue supporting terrorists or acting in terrorist manners, but I
don't subscribe to the thought. At least not as an ultimate truth,
certainly. But I can't disprove it.
> I bet it's easier than we are led to believe. We'd just have to be willing to
> pay for it.
Pay for it how? Through competition? IE the US competing against new, truly
weighty countries? Or more in a moral sense, like feeling morally violated
by legalizing drugs? Or, I suppose, in a physical sense? I guess the
question is are you implying that the US is intentionally keeping those
countries behind us to further our own power?
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
