Subject:
|
Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:16:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
312 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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
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.
> (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 many view the military costs as a price worth paying? Your view
appears to be that anyone who does not agree with you has no understanding
of reality – I just can’t agree with that
> 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.
Even if true, education is what is required. The poster we are discussing
here did *not* raise the level of the debate.
>
> 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.
"otherwise innocent" - a laughable term. If people break the law, they are
criminals. If the law is bad, it should be changed - not ignored. Or perhaps
you back legalised burglary, so that otherwise innocents may be released?
>
> 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.
Eh, no. That sounds more like poor policing.
Scott A
=+=
Have you inspected Arthur’s Seat yet?
http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=scotta
"A reasonable man adapts himself to suit his environment. An unreasonable
man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." (GBS)
=+=
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: War on Drugs SUPPORTS terrorists.
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 2-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
