:eek:
“And just because poverty doesn’t vanish doesn’t mean it’s the antipoverty programs that aren’t working.”
And just because drugs don’t vanish doesn’t mean the anti-drug enforcement effort isn’t working.
Wait a minute…
Well, that’s right, Jack. It’s not the drug interdiction efforts and draconian property forfeiture laws that are keeping drugs on the market; it’s other economic and societal forces. And that’s about the limit of congruency between the drug “problem” and poverty. It’s universally agreed that poverty is a bad thing, to be prevented where possible. There’s absolutely no concensus in this country that currently illicit drugs are evil or that the users of those drugs should be regarded as criminals. Lib’s point may be that governmental aid programs aren’t addressing real causes and therefore those governmental efforts should be redirected, but if so he hasn’t exactly made the point. (And I don’t think that’s exactly what he’s saying, either.)
The people who produced the Flash animation didn’t have their dissent reduced.
I love it when people complain about while dissenting voices being silenced in the U.S. What is that damned flash animation, anyway, if not dissent?
Putzes.
Well, hell. Let’s try that again.
I love it when people complain about dissenting voices being silenced in the U.S. What is that damned flash animation, anyway, if not dissent?:rolleyes:
Chalk up a mighty whoosh for our xeno.
It’s a common tactic to suggest that any program or effort to combat a specific problem that’s existed for a long time without ending or substantially reducing the problem must be a failure.
On the left, this criticism often is applied to law enforcement, incarceration and the death penalty, since they haven’t “solved” the crime problem.
So there’s a certain irony in seeing antipoverty programs which have a similar record of “failure” defended.
We should always ask ourselves how much worse the situation might be without the program that’s under attack.
That is all.
Okaaaay. How much worse would the situation be without the War on Drugs artificially inflating prices and arresting people for nonviolent crimes?
The whole first strike with nuclear weapons thing?
That’d be my guess.
When did that happen?
Why does everybody think that a nuke-on-Baghdad is a fait accompli?
Oh, I quite agree. With a free flow of cheap heroin, crack cocaine, crank etc. there’d be no drug problem at all in this country. :rolleyes:
Nice link, Stoid. Thanks for posting it. I’m passing it round, and everyone here likes it so far.
For everyone whining about it… it’s a parody, people: short, sweet, and to the point. Don’t get too serious about it now, OK?
That’s not what I asked, Jackmanii. I asked, how much worse would it be, then posited the two most obvious negative consequences of the drug war. So, we would have cheap drugs, though still illegal, presumably.
So then what?
Possibly a nitpick…possibly not: AFDC doesn’t exist anymore. Try TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).
Yeah, there’d be morons shooting up every day, sometimes more often, and dying from it.
People would OVERDOSE, for God’s sake! OVERDOSE on DRUGS!
…
Cheap shot time!
Morons overdosing every day… I fail to see the problem.
(No, not really.)
So, you’re suggesting with cheaper and more available drugs, there will be a greater potential for abuse in quantity. It’s a good thought, but what percentage of the drug-using population couldn’t afford to overdose now that might, given the opportunity? I’m not seeing a great change here. What concerns me would be more in the line of more and different people using, like unto the 80s with the dentists and everyone using coke.
Nooo!!
Dagg! I just wrote out a long thought out response…the hamsters ate it!
Weep me a river. 
Always happy to help friedo.
(Ha! and you all thought I was making it up!
)
I don’t have time now, but perhaps I’ll come back and re-write my response.
Yeah, like when opium was legal. Everyone was a GODDAMNED JUNKE and nobody did anything until Devil Poppy was controlled.
Yeah, when Sears sold laudanum, everyone was a junk-fiend and people would routinely engage in homicide and prostitution to feed their rampant habit.
People would try to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to other drugged-up miscreants, even though the bridge was the rightful property of the Glorious Republic.
Yes, yes!
And we all know that pot smokers are all lazy, shiftless wastrels!
I mean, the DEA says so! They’re criminal, y’know? :eek:
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Tobaggan!