True, it is a shame I lack an interest in the specifics of such weapons. Since you’re apparently so well briefed on these weapons of mass destruction, let me fill you in on a little ethics. Killing people is not good, in fact, you MIGHT say it is wrong to kill. However an individual should be allowed to protect his or her person from violence (unless it’s a cop attacking you). The same logic does not apply to warfare, in warfare your dealing with states, institutions, and tens of thousands of people.
You see its possible for a government to say “we bombed that to defend our country!” while at the same time that government is violently repressing its own people, thus refering to country is not refering to its people in this context (no country is repressonless, prove otherwise?). There is a contradition, Japan was at war with America yes, but it families? it workers? They were no more ‘at war’ then the families at home in America. And had Japan dropped Atomics on America in ‘self defence’ it would has been wrong also. The use of Atomics in WW2 was not required (had no weapons been used the casualities would have been far less, right?), it was a cheap alternative, a propaganda victory, something that would strike terror into the hearts of the Japanese and bring them to their knees, after all how could the Japanese Gov. continue a war that could cost that many lives again?
To defend is to ward off attack, the use of “ATOMIC” weapons on two unevacuated major cities is a not a defence, its an attack, in revenge or retaliation, it is still an attack.
Hmm, maybe reading a post before responding to it is a good idea? My point was ‘rebel’ DOES NOT equal ‘terrorist’.
I just had a thought. When I propose to a girl, and she calls me a cheapskate because of the cubic zarconia (sp?) ring I give her, I can just reply with,
“But honey, you don’t want to be a supporter of terrorism, now do you?”
Show her the National Geographic article with the pictures of children in Sierra Leone whose limbs had been macheted off in order to force their parents’ cooperation with the local diamond kingpin’s orders, and she may very well indeed.
It’s just a matter of degree. I don’t get over bothered by the pirate CDs, clothes etc. I know they’re illegal and they’re taking food out of Tommy Hilfiger’s baby’s mouth, but I remain unmoved.
Terrorists are by definition criminals. If you’re planting bombs in shopping centres its unlikely you’re going to care about copyright theft, or the misery that drugs do cause.
The answer is surely to take the market away by:
reducing demand through education and treatment programmes
Controlling supply through legalisation.
In London it is very easy for a 14 year old to buy ANY drug from and unlicenced unscrupulous dealer than it is to buy either cigarettes or alcohol from a licenced outlet.
As has already mentioned there is plenty of domestic drug productoin, BUY LOCAL! If we accept the fact that foreign drug sales support terrorism it follows that whenever the DEA burns down a California weed plantation they are supporting terrorism.
First of all - I’m happy to be supporting some aged Hippies growing in the woods. Nothing ‘terrorist’ about them.
Speaking of ‘terrorism’ - who defines it? It’s simply a label applied to a group that is being oppressed in some manner, usually by the elite that names them Terrorist.
As much as the ‘victors write the history books’, the oppressed are labeled as Terrorist by the oppressors.
Lots of folks are labelling the US as a terrorist entity - seeing as we’ve killed more in the continuing ‘war on terror’ than perished in NY or DC. Maybe we should stop paying our taxes?
Here’s a thought - maybe running an illegal business (selling/producing drugs or any contraband) and NOT paying taxes is the best way to oppose terrorism!
OMG. I just saw the newest of these commercials last night. Two guys in a restaurant, First guy says, “so, drugs really support terrorism?” Second guy- “Yes, its,true” “Really?” “Yep” “You sure” “Yep,it’s a fact”
First guy: “how much of what I spend actually reaches the terrorists?”
Second guy: " so you’re saying it’s ok to support terrorists even…A LITTLE??"
Who is coming up with this crap? Based on second guys final comment re:supporting terrorism even a little bit, shouldn’t we have commercials against cars with poor gas mileage? What a load of crap. This deserves a pit rant.
Ever read the autobiography Mr. Nice by Howard Marks?
I think he might have been one of the guys that got it to you. It’s a great book if you want to read about the life of an international dope smuggler.
Exactly, but it’s the kind of cheap shot you can get away with in America because if you do buy weed here you are a violent criminal who deserves to serve hard time. At least that seems to be the prevailing legal view here in the progressive south.
If you buy illegal drugs, you certainly do support terrorism. I can think of a specific example very easily.
Back when Pablo escobar was at the height of his powers a Colombian Airliner blew up in midair. The cause was later found to be a bomb which was planted by one of Escobar’s subordinates.
If that’s not an act of terrorism, I don’t know what is.
I’m not a drug head and I readily admit that I reap the benefits of being an American citizen. That said, I can certainly disagree with the laws and work to get them changed.
**
You know how many sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, etc. wish to God their loved ones had never gotten involved with demon rum? I’m sure something like that was said during the temperence movement. I wonder how many lives would have been saved if people could have sought medical treatment for their drug addiction instead of prison time. A drug addict who didn’t have to worry about when or where his next hit would come from could be a more productive member of society.
**
I believe the laws cause more harm then the drugs themselves. When was the last time we had a bunch of young punks running around blowing people away to protect a drug racket? Oh yeah, prohibition.
[quote] Originally posted by sqweelz
During the Great Dope Famine of 1986 (anyone remember…uh, what were we talking about?) some friends of mine resorted to buying a half pound of hash. It came in a flat cake with a gold seal in the center showing a hand holding an AK-47 and the words “Afghani Resistance”.*
I remember that! I bought Afghan hash too (I got a slice of it anyway, I never saw the seal). I ended up basically comatose for a week.
Good times, good times…[Diogenes drifts off into reverie]
No, not really. Basic econ case here: Seat belts lower the cost of driving recklessly, allowing people to consume more reckless driving (which is a good thing) but meaning their likihood of accidents is higher (which is bad). Of course, seat belts make those accidents less harmful (which is why they encourage reckless driving), but this benefit is pretty much canceled out in practice by there being more of them (and more chances for REALLY deadly ones that seatbelts can’t help). The main problem is that pedestrians are screwed: they are at greater risk from more reckless driving, AND seatbelt wearing doesn’t benefit them.
So, in practice, the real question as to whether seat belts are a good idea all rests upon whether the joy of being able to drive more recklessly is worth the price of more lost pedestrian lives.
So it isn’t just about the stupid. There’s no reason other than hassle to not use a seat belt if you have one, of course, but wait a minute: who are we to say that the hassle is worth less than the possible reduced risk of injury? Instead of mandatory seat belt laws, smart health insurance companies should just offer penalties to people who get in accidents without a seatbelt on.
Just a wry note: people often accuse the drug czar of supporting terrorism because their war on suppliers keeps prices (and huge, risky profits) high. But it’s misguided to see this and then forget about the fact that drug punishments also keep demand low. If you are a drug user and all you care about is price (not the risk you take of getting caught) then it’s not clear whether you should be mad with the drug czar or not: it all depends on what he depresses more, demand or supply.
And if cocaine had never been criminalized? Pablo Escobar probably would have been a farmer or something.
Furthur, pot smokers were hardly supporting Escobar. Colombia is known for one thing and one thing only - cocaine. See, coca leaves have to grow at a very specific altitude and climate, and Colombia is one of the only places that fits. Pot, OTOH, is essentially a weed and will grow in spite of you. Almost all of the pot in the U.S. comes from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.
As for Eurasian terrorist growers, it just wouldn’t make sense to smuggle marijuana, which is very bulky compared to powdered drugs, and which has a slimmer profit margin, across an entire ocean.
People who buy pot and move around a lot will notice that the farther the drug gets from its home, the more expensive it gets. In Texas and Louisiana, Mexican dirt weed is ridiculously cheap, but potent Canadian pot costs an arm and a leg compared to what an Oregonian would pay.