Subject:
|
Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Mar 2002 15:47:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
278 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > To counter the propaganda run a few weeks ago the LP supposedly placed an ad
> > in today's USA Today.
> >
> > Here is the info on it:
> > http://www.lp.org/issues/drugczarad.html
> >
> > and here is the ad:
> > http://www.lp.org/action/files/!drugwar.pdf
> > (100K pdf, may be a bit slow to d/l)
> >
> > Did anyone see it? I don't normally get that paper except when travelling
> > but will try to grab a copy today if I can when I get to my hotel tonite.
>
> Excellent! Do you have any way of knowing what attention the ad attracted?
The LP mailing list received an update. I could post it if there's interest.
The drug czar didn't take the bait, unfortunately, so it did generate some
other coverage, but not quite the controversy that was hoped for. (If the
DEA or whoever had issued a public statement condemning the ad that would
have been ideal, I think)
> Has the LP web site had a burst of hits or mail? I hope that this does raise
> awareness of the reality of things.
Indeed. I suspect a number of people have connected the first dot and
realise that the WOD raises the price of drugs at the street level (even
some uncritical thinkers that hang out here made THAT connection) but many
have not made it to the next dot what the military cost to the country of
enabling criminal organizations to make large quantities of cash actually are.
Perhaps some of them HAVE made that connection, thanks to the original ad
from the warriors, as well as the LP ad, but they haven't thought through
WHY those organizations are enabled. THAT'S the point the LP ad is trying to
make... that the drugwarriors are just flat out lying about who is at fault
because they themselves are the party at fault and would rather lie than
admit it. Maybe it's too subtle a point.
Further they have not thought about what the economic cost to the country of
having hundreds of thousands of otherwise innocents incarcerated might be,
either.
It was not, after all, the fault of peaceful fun loving alcohol drinkers
that the Kennedy clan made huge gobbets of money from running illegal
alcohol (thus giving them a power base to launch into politics), after all.
It was the fault of laws that try to regulate victimless consensual
behaviour. Unintended consequences (unless you ascribe malice to the
governmental agencies that prefer to keep things as they are because it
allows for empire building, or in the worst case, exploitation of illegal
drug trades (hello, CIA, I'm talking about you in the not so distant past)
to raise funds.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
| (...) Why be so generous? I think they are STILL dealing drugs, as are many members of most of our law enforcement agencies. My assertion is and essentially HAS TO BE correct -- how else could drugs flood our streets and prisons? Moreover, the only (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
| (...) lol. Do you feel that there is even a chance that the average "Joe" will think that the WOD *lowers* the price of drugs on the street? I really do doubt that. I really do. (...) Perhaps many view the military costs as a price worth paying? (...) (23 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
14 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
|
|
|
|
