The W
Views: 99889946
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.10.14 1340
The W - Current Events & Politics - Libertarian War on Drugs ad
This thread has 35 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2548 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
evilwaldo
Lap cheong








Since: 7.2.02
From: New York, NY

Since last post: 3406 days
Last activity: 3186 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
The area around Mazar-e-Sharif, southern Turkmenistan, and southern Uzbekistan is where the good heroin is grown.

When the Russian invaded Afganistan and decided to stay around the army turned into heroin addicts. Guys would spend the day shooting up and that made them easy targets for the resistance fighters.





You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling towards you. You reach down and flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Promote this thread!
rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3566 days
Last activity: 3444 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.22
I'm sure you've all seen the commercials that debuted during the Super Bowl which essentially accuse people who buy illicit drugs of helping terrorists. It's not real popular with people who are drug users or Libertarians who are against the War on Drugs and the Libertarian Party recently bought a full page ad in USA Today that parodies this ad.

From the Libertarian site: The ad shows a huge blowup of the face of Drug Czar John Walters, and states: "This week, I had lunch with the President, testified before Congress, and helped funnel $40 million in illegal drug money to groups like the Taliban." You can see the ad at that link as well.

I think the ad is great. I've always been against the War on Drugs, even before I started helping the terrorists using dru...I mean, I've just never liked the idea of telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. On top of that, prohibiting the supply of products that have a serious demand creates a violent black market, like the infamous ban on alcohol in America that created a crime syndicate that still exists 80 years later. And on and on. The most interesting fact that I learned from this article (some of the statements were made by Neil Boortz earlier this week when he first reported on the ad) is that the prohibition of illicit substances boosts the prices of the substances as much as 17,000%, creating the profits that go to all sorts of evil people like the Taliban.

It's all interesting stuff and I wondered what other Libertarians like CRZ as well as folks with other political leanings thought about it.

(edited by rockstar on 3.3.02 2239)
"Life is tough. Life is tougher if you're stupid." --John Wayne

"If I can't dazzle you with brilliance, then I'll befuddle you with bullshit." --"Dirty" Dutch Mantel
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2986 days
Last activity: 2982 days
#3 Posted on
I'm just ashamed that it took so long for some fairly large group to speak up about the less-than-accurate ad, and that the Libertarians are the only group to do so.



Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
i thought it was the sale of diamonds and other gems that funded the taliban....not drugs...when i think of places that they grow pot, afganistan is NOT one of them...



I am my own worst enemy, and I make it a point to kill all my enemies...
R-I-P?
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#5 Posted on
Afganistan grows insane amounts of poppy, which is used for heroin and other opiates. The diamond smuggling trade is what funds most of the fighting in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Moe



And you know this...Man!
BDC
Chourico








Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4464 days
Last activity: 3920 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on

    Originally posted by eviljonhunt81
    I'm just ashamed that it took so long for some fairly large group to speak up about the less-than-accurate ad, and that the Libertarians are the only group to do so.


The Administration's ad was accurate. When you buy drugs, the ultimate benefactors of that drug trade are the terrorists, the Colombian cartels, whoever. That doesn't mean that the Libertarian ad isn't also true. The way the War on Drugs is approached has increased the street price of drugs, which then leads into the point of the Administration's ad.

Where I believe the Libertarian ad is wrong in its attack is that the responsibility for drug use is between those who buy them, those who use them, and those who supply them. Do terrorists groups benefit MORE because the street price is higher? Yes. Would there be any funding for terrorists through the drug trade if people didn't use drugs? Obviously not. The bottom line is, nobody is forcing anyone to purchase and use illegal drugs. That is a personal choice one makes, and obviously, even with prices 17,000% higher than they should be--if that statistic is true--the market for drugs exists. The responsibility must lie with the people who buy them.

BDC



"Hitler had pieces of flair that he made the Jews wear."
210
Blutwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: St Paul, MN

Since last post: 4322 days
Last activity: 4322 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
, I've just never liked the idea of telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies


You ever get the feeling that Americans are just getting WAY to open minded? I do.




MINNESOTA IS SO HOTT
Notorious F.A.B.
Pepperoni








Since: 4.2.02
From: Dudleyville's Gay Ghetto

Since last post: 4024 days
Last activity: 4010 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on
iirc, the superbowl ad focused on pot, then says anyone who buys any illegal drug is supporting the terrorists.

i don't know about you guys, but most of the time i can pin point where my glaucoma medicine comes from. if it wasn't grown in some out of the way corner of a corn field it's usually from cali or texas and the shit isn't imported there, it's grown there by fine freedom-loving 'mericans like myself. sometimes it's come over a border from BC or mexico but i've never had some afghani pot. imagine what the price would be! prohibitive even if they had the melt into the couch kind bud with more red hair than ireland.

you could say the stuff that comes from mexico funds the big drug cartels and i'd have to go with you on that. i don't have the kind of facts to dispute it.

the us supported the taliban because they worked against the opium fields in afghanistan. from this point of view, the libertarians have got it - it's the bullshit war on the drugs that has precipitated the bullshit war on terror. (this is an oversimplification.)

cocaine, heroin... these are the bread and butter of the evil terrorists. buy these illegal drugs and you probably are supporting them somewhere up the food chain. saying that buying weed - because it's also an illegal drug - is the same thing is just bullshit PR moves, like hogan putting himself in the same quarter hours as the "real" talent.



It's just you against the group mind.
I like weiners.
rockstar
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: East TN

Since last post: 3566 days
Last activity: 3444 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.22

    Originally posted by 210
    , I've just never liked the idea of telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies


    You ever get the feeling that Americans are just getting WAY to open minded? I do.



I hope that was sarcasm.

To BDC, I say nyah. More specifically, there is a demand for drugs that is high enough to create a market. The fact that drugs are illegal is just a morality play that is becoming more and more futile as time moves along. Yes, if you buy drugs, that is your choice, but the government can't complain that drug users are funding terrorists when their policies create the profits. That's more of what the ad is saying, rather than taking responsibility away from users.

The government could easily decriminalize drugs and regulate the market, like they do for alcohol, tobacco, food, legal drugs, etc. Instead of foreign terror organizations profiting, the US government profits. Do usage rates go up? Do drug related crime rates go down? It's impossible to tell because we're afraid to even look into what benefits would come about from ending the War on Drugs.

Lifting the ban on drugs takes away the terrorists profits, probably would greatly reduce the number of people in America's vastly overcrowded prison system and help make drugs safer. (By "safer" drugs, I refer to the quality of drugs like cocaine and heroin, not the possibility of less drug related crime.)

To another point: part of the reason I disliked the initial anti-drug ads was because the White House said that the ads weren't related to the Sept. 11 attacks, which is pure bullshit. Before Sept 11, most Americans didn't know what terrorism was in any meaningful way that would give it the weight to be used as an argument against the illicit substance market. An ad like this a year ago wouldn't have raised so much as an eyebrow among most Americans because the majority of people who truly knew what terrorism is lived in either Ireland or the Middle East. America suffers its worst terrorist attack ever and suddenly it's a tool for the White House to continue the waste of taxpayer money that is the War on Drugs? That's just sick.



"Life is tough. Life is tougher if you're stupid."
--John Wayne

"If I can't dazzle you with brilliance, then I'll befuddle you with bullshit."
--"Dirty" Dutch Mantel
210
Blutwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: St Paul, MN

Since last post: 4322 days
Last activity: 4322 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00

    I hope that was sarcasm.



None whatsoever.




MINNESOTA IS SO HOTT
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2828 days
Last activity: 2671 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on
iirc, the superbowl ad focused on pot, then says anyone who buys any illegal drug is supporting the terrorists.

I don't think the ads mentioned ANY drug by name. They just showed quick cuts of people discussing their rationale for drug use. "What's a little harmless fun? It's my body?" etc.

I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana. I don't smoke it, personally, but I don't see it as being that different from alcohol. Both are mild drugs that do not cause the users harm (unless abused), and neither are that addictive. I mean, cigarettes are legal, and they're linked to more deaths than marijuana. In short, I don't think the community, or the state, or whatever, has any compelling reason to ban marijuana.

Drugs like cocaine and heroin, however, are a different ballgame. These drugs are incredibly addictive, and can have long-term negative effects on users. The government wouldn't let a company sell hamburgers laced with aresenic, so why permit the sale of heroin? What if some stupid kid thought he was being cool, or tough, and tried it? Say that kid gets addicted. In that case, I think we need to protect people from their own stupidity. I'm only 20 years old, but I wouldn't want my kid, or my younger brother going out and "experimenting" with heroin. And if not from a humanitarian perspective, then from a cash perspective, the costs to the government (read: we the taxpayers) would likely be huge (treatment, incarceration for violent crimes...).

So anyway, I think by legalizing heroin, a large Afghani export, we'd be doing a disservice to the country. Forget that there's a market for it. I guess my justification is that heroin is just plain harmful. Booze and pot can be used recreationally. I haven't met a recreational heroin user yet. (I give it time, though, as I do attend a marvelous state university). I have a friend who spent a few years on cocaine, though. It's not something he speaks fondly of, and it's not something he stopped doing easily. The point of this whole thing is, I think, that heroin is not solely an individual choice. Such a powerful and addictive substance can not only destroy the life of a user, but can place a burden on their families and on the government.



"The thing about gambling is... you gotta be ready to lose. You got 21? I got 22. You got Blackjack? I got two of those."
Jake "The Snake" Roberts
BDC
Chourico








Since: 26.1.02
From: Falls Church, VA

Since last post: 4464 days
Last activity: 3920 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on

    Originally posted by rockstar
    To BDC, I say nyah. More specifically, there is a demand for drugs that is high enough to create a market. The fact that drugs are illegal is just a morality play that is becoming more and more futile as time moves along. Yes, if you buy drugs, that is your choice, but the government can't complain that drug users are funding terrorists when their policies create the profits. That's more of what the ad is saying, rather than taking responsibility away from users.


My point, rockstar, is that no matter how high the price of drugs are, people are buying them because as you say, the demand exists. I never said that the ad itself attempts to move responsibilities for drug use away from users; however, I do believe that the ramifications of arguing that the government's policies driving up prices funds terrorism point in that direction. The government is not creating a demand. Users are creating the demand. You cannot name another product where if the market price was artificially increased by 17,000% that that product or that company could survive in the market. Rational people would never overpay to such a degree for any product. I don't think you can say that drug users are rational spenders--they cannot help themselves because the demand, the need, for the product is so high that they would be willing to spend any price to get the product. Therein lies what I believe is the fallacy of the Libertarian argument. Say the government treated drugs like it treats fornication. In many states, it is still technically illegal to have unmarried sex. Let's say that the government just stated that drugs were illegal, but spent no money on enforcement--eliminated the DEA, ended DARE programs, cops only issued citations for obvious drug use in connection with other crimes; just like fornication charges are usually only added in when people are busted for something else--prices would no doubt be lower. But the demand would still be there. The terrorists who supply the drugs would still be making money. They would be making less, no doubt, but they would still be making money. However, if people stopped using drugs...terrorists would not make any money through the drug trade. When you go to the root of the problem, it is the supply and the demand. The intervening element of the raised price based on government policy is spurrious at the base level.

If the government decided to legalize drugs and regulate them ala alcohol, you would no longer have the supply; but demand would not change. Demand may even increase because the general deterrence effect of illegal narcotics would be removed and those that would not use drugs for purely legalistic reasons would no longer be subject to that roadblock. What you would have would be the same problems affecting our country in terms of alcohol--the only victims would be society at large.

Do I believe the current strategy in the war on drugs is effective? No. The statistics showed for a period of time a decrease in drug use; however, I believe in the latest statitics, there has been an increase in certain drugs, particularly marijuana and extasy. Does it mean these drugs should be legalized? No. It does not behoove our society to legalize such damaging behavior. Is that an irrational position in the face of legal alcohol consumption and legal smoking? I admit that it may be; however, I think that if you look at things from a utilitarian perspective, the harms of drug use and drug abuse are so high that it outweighs any benefits that legalization would bring.

I have one question for libertarians, though. How would you possibly orchestrate a legalization of drugs? You talk about regulation in similar fashion to that of alcohol and cigarrettes, but I still see the government in charge. I was under the impression that you wanted as little government intrusion in your personal lives as possible. All I see is that the way in which the government would be involved in drug use would change. Instead of arresting and jailing dealers and users, they would become the dealers and regulate the users through taxation and whatever else.

BDC



"Hitler had pieces of flair that he made the Jews wear."
Qubber
Boerewors








Since: 7.1.02
From: Sheffield, UK

Since last post: 2748 days
Last activity: 2011 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.00
    Originally posted by rockstar

    the majority of people who truly knew what terrorism is lived in either Ireland or the Middle East.


I don't usually post in this forum, so I won't get involved in the debate but I'd just like to add "and Great Britain" to the list in Rockstar's quote. I'm not saying that to say we have suffered to the same extent as in Israel or in Northern Ireland but we have suffered too, and suffered frequently. Cheers.

(edited by Qubber on 6.3.02 1059)
"Nobody enjoys a good time more than I do, but this business of yours is as legitimate as a three-legged donkey...which of course is illegitimate because as we all know donkeys have four legs." Lance Storm, 21st January 2002.
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2864 days
Last activity: 2864 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
BDC asks:

    How would you possibly orchestrate a legalization of drugs?


Legalize pot by ripping up the statutes against it. So many people grow it and smoke it now, having laws against it only makes the government look stupid and very behind the times.

Decriminalize hard drugs. The government wouldn't actually sell or tax the stuff, but would deliver it to some people through the health care system. If someone starts abusing hard drugs, and becoming addicted, they could go to their doctors for help. I believe having doctors prescribing hard drugs to addicts has been successful in some places. Remember -- drug addiction is not a moral failure, it is a medical problem.

One other disadvantage to the War on Drugs is that it actually contributes to violent crime. Addicts have to mug or steal (or prostitute themselves) to afford their next fix. Street gangs shoot each other, and sometimes innocent bystanders, for control of the local drug trade. Decriminalization would end this.






Past hills of chambermaids' dark bare arms and fields of muscles quilted to the bone,
Right now I'm flying over, yeah right now I'm flying home.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2828 days
Last activity: 2671 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on
Gavintzu, what do you think the cost to the health care system would be? You can say drug addiction is a medical problem, but it many cases, it is one that people acquire more or less voluntarily. Judging from the way the US has handled the issue of tobacco, I don't think a legalization of hard drugs would go very far in this country. Instead of Big Tobacco, we'll have endless lawsuits against Big Heroin. But just think... RAW could have segments sponsored by heroin manufactureers. "Smocking rock is whacko - if you're a teen."



"The thing about gambling is... you gotta be ready to lose. You got 21? I got 22. You got Blackjack? I got two of those."
Jake "The Snake" Roberts
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2864 days
Last activity: 2864 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
No no no no no. That is the difference between "legalization" and "decriminalization". Hard drugs wouldn't be legal, in that the government would still charge smugglers or dealers who are caught with large amounts. They wouldn't imprison people for simple possession for personal use, but fine them. This is the way it currently works in Holland and Germany I believe.

Think of the driving laws. It is illegal to do 60 in a 50 zone. But you won't get a criminal record for getting a speeding ticket. Simple speeding is illegal but decriminalized.

Edit: "You can say drug addiction is a medical problem, but it many cases, it is one that people acquire more or less voluntarily." The number one drain on the health care system in North America is obesity and poor diet. People voluntarily eat Wendy's Triple Burger and Supersize Fries, and they end up in the cardiac care unit. Shall we shut down the fast-food joints because of their cost to society?



(edited by Gavintzu on 6.3.02 0801)
Past hills of chambermaids' dark bare arms and fields of muscles quilted to the bone, Right now I'm flying over, yeah right now I'm flying home.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2828 days
Last activity: 2671 days
AIM:  
#17 Posted on

    Originally posted by Gavintzu
    No no no no no. That is the difference between "legalization" and "decriminalization". Hard drugs wouldn't be legal, in that the government would still charge smugglers or dealers who are caught with large amounts. They wouldn't imprison people for simple possession for personal use, but fine them. This is the way it currently works in Holland and Germany I believe.

    Think of the driving laws. It is illegal to do 60 in a 50 zone. But you won't get a criminal record for getting a speeding ticket. Simple speeding is illegal but decriminalized.

    Edit: "You can say drug addiction is a medical problem, but it many cases, it is one that people acquire more or less voluntarily." The number one drain on the health care system in North America is obesity and poor diet. People voluntarily eat Wendy's Triple Burger and Supersize Fries, and they end up in the cardiac care unit. Shall we shut down the fast-food joints because of their cost to society?



    (edited by Gavintzu on 6.3.02 0801)




As true as your last point may be, a quarter pounder doesn't HAVE to lead to heart disease. I think hard drugs preclude casual use. I mean, booze can destroy your liver, too, but only if you go overboard. If alcohol was guaranteed to destroy the liver of anyone who used it, I might say ban that too.

Thanks for clearing up your point about decriminialization... I think was a little hazy in my reply. However, if we're going to charge smugglers and dealers, that supply and demand dynamic remains unchanged, and people will still be killing other people for the chance to sell drugs on our fair continent. Perhaps even moreso since their customers can be more open about it. We're talking free markets, here, and until we get some good, Grade-A, homegrown US of A crack flooding those streets, the damned Colombians will have the corner on that market.

How is drug use in Canada, anyway? Do people talk about it like they do here?



"The thing about gambling is... you gotta be ready to lose. You got 21? I got 22. You got Blackjack? I got two of those."
Jake "The Snake" Roberts
Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2864 days
Last activity: 2864 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
Palpatine sez:

    I think hard drugs preclude casual use.


Wanna hear a dirty little secret? I have personally used cocaine three times in my life. It was a nifty little high, and one year made the office Christmas party the best night out I have ever had. But I didn't become an addict or even a regular user. My addiction to Crown Royal is cheaper and safer.

I do have a point though: the drug business is booming all over the world. The massive amounts of coke being sold in the US are not all being used by junkies lying in the slums. Lots are being used casually by your cooworkers, college students, police officers, lawyers, even some judges, I'm sure. People like taking chemicals to alter their moods. But give people credit ... most people will not immediately start mainlining heroin just because the option is available to them. Just like most people do not become alcholics even though all those liquor stores are right there.


    if we're going to charge smugglers and dealers, that supply and demand dynamic remains unchanged, and people will still be killing other people for the chance to sell drugs on our fair continent.


True to some extent, but decriminalization does lead to drastically lower street prices. Small time dealers, who only have to worry about a fine, can safely hawk their wares. This leads to lower profits for dealers. Which in turn eliminates the cause of the gang violence -- increadible massive amounts of money.


    How is drug use in Canada, anyway? Do people talk about it like they do here?


British Columbia pot is the finest in the world. Oh, that's not what you meant. Where I live, pot is effectively decriminalized, in that there is tons around and the police don't waste their time arresting people for personal amounts. It is now legal for terminally ill patients to smoke pot, but not to grow it themselves. The courts are dealing with that stupidity.

Oh, and the biker gangs rule the roost when it comes to dealing hard drugs. Quebec is particularly hard hit with biker gangs setting bombs that tend to kill civilians.






Past hills of chambermaids' dark bare arms and fields of muscles quilted to the bone,
Right now I'm flying over, yeah right now I'm flying home.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 197 days
Last activity: 197 days
#19 Posted on
Okay, just a note to those of you who posted earlier in the thread: The Taliban is very fundamentalist. They take a hardline view on drugs, and have been attempting (not particularly effectively) to shut down the Heroin trade in Afghanistan for years. The Northern Alliance (the ones we just put into power, if you recall) has been funding their war with the Taliban off said Heroin trade.

One of the problems is that US foreign policy and US domestic policy rarely, if ever, match. So of course, all our politicians become the biggest group of liars and hypocrites in the world. Hooray!

-Jag

Damn, I hate politics.
/edit: Damn, I hate typos too.



(edited by Jaguar on 7.3.02 0006)
eviljonhunt81
Pepperoni








Since: 6.1.02
From: not Japan

Since last post: 2986 days
Last activity: 2982 days
#20 Posted on
While I am against the war on drugs, and support decriminalization and whatnot, I must point out that it seems that the Taliban was not as hard on drugs as previously thought. While they did crack down, they still did support some farmers who sold drugs. I think it depended a lot on the area and the officials in charge there. nonetheless, the hypocrisy of the War on Drugs ad still stands.



Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Middle East
Next thread: Marion Barry
Previous thread: It depends on what the definition of "Now" is
(2548 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I'm reminded of a saying on another website: "SAVE A TREE. EAT A VEGAN."
- The Great Thomas, I hate stupid hiipy vegans (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Libertarian War on Drugs adRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.188 seconds.