So, I see that you don’t believe in personal responsibility. The persons who passed the laws criminalizing drugs have created the situation where the pot is illegal and the money spent supports bad things. But it’s not THEIR fault.
It’s this goddamn hippie liberal no-personal-responsibility bullshit attitude that is fucking up this country.
Sua
Hysterical, reactionary bullshit. How about you address some of the valid and well though out points that I and other posters have been making here, rather than this kind of drivel?
[sub]Well, if I could find some “valid and well-thought out points” I’d respond to them.[/sub]
What haven’t I addressed? The fact that the idea of responsible consumerism can be taken to an absurd extreme, like the Salvation Army example. Or are you pissed that I don’t accept your assertion that people who buy drugs share no blame in the evils of the drug trade? Tell you what, write out your “points” and I’ll respond. I’ve been doing it all along, so it won’t be an imposition.
Ok, I get it. No matter what folks say, you are not going to change you stance. I can point out until I am blue in the face that the problems that you are describing are the fault of the folks enforcing these foolish laws, and you will continue to blame the consumer. I can assert that by giving in to these maniacs and their stupid laws, that we are granting them a dangerous legitimacy, and you will continue to blame the consumer.
It is strange, because I feel like you have not been reading this entire thread and that mystifies me a bit. It must be strange to see life through such a specific filter that you are unable to parse things that are right in front of you. Granted, I am a pretty opinionated fellow, but I am at least able to see the validity of other points of view. You seem not only unable to do this, but indeed unable to even see them when they are waved under your nose. Looks like the wind is north-northwest today Hamlet.
No. Obviously you don’t get it. See, the problem is, it’s not just an either or blame game. Maybe that’s what I didn’t make clear. The Very Bad Things can not, as you seem to assert, be solely blamed on the War on Drugs. The consumers DO bear some of the blame, which was my whole point. And refusing to smoke dope because it supports violence, is not “Giving in” to the laws. You could be the biggest supporter of legalization in the world and still make the responsible choice of not adding your money to the Very Bad Things. And, your personal rights not withstanding, the laws are legitimate. Properly enacted, and, from the most recent attempts at legalization, seem to be the will of the people. To assert that you are acting as some kind of civil disobedience martyr when you light up may help you sleep at night, but I don’t think it carries much weight.
Wow, another backhanded insult. Look, don’t pretty it up for me, I’m a big boy. If you think I’m an idiot, say so. I have read the thread, I’ve understood your points, and I’ve responded to them. And I can accept other viewpoints, but that doesn’t mean that I am wrong or have some kind of strange filter, because I think you are irresponsible for continuing to throw money into the illicit drug trade.
Yes, yes you are partly to blame. Guess what: there has been snow in the world for a long time before there were SUVs, and know what? People managed. You do not NEED one, you CHOSE one, and you are obliged to take responsibility for that choice.
I am happy to take responsibility for the pollution and non-renewable resources that went into the manufacture of my bike, because I have looked at the options for my transportation, weighed convenience vs costs (to myself, as well as to the greater society) and found that my bike is the best way for me to get around. This is a privilege, no doubt: I live in a flat city, don’t have far to travel or much to carry, and have full use of my arms and legs. Walking is not an option, and (if you had read my previous post) everyone has to make a choice according to their lifestyle.
I am not criticizing your choice of an SUV, I am requesting that you take responsibility for the consequences of your choice. And the consequences are that you contribute to pollution and traffic congestion (not to mention the pollution and non-renawable resources that went into its manufacture, as well as its upkeep and its ultimate disposal).
We have had snow, children, furniture, and sporting equipment for much longer than we have had SUVs, and the world has managed to survive until now. I even know people who (gasp!) don’t have cars at all. Your choice of vehicle is a CHOICE, and if it is one that is so costly to the people around you, you had better be prepared to defend it.
I suggest you do a google search on these names:[ul][li]Albert Sepulveda[/li][li]Esequiel Hernandez[/li][li]Tommie C. Dubose[/li][li]Annie Rae Dixon[/li][/ul]Now, your taxes pay the salaries of the people who shot these people to death (that whole 4th Amendment thing doesn’t mean too much these days). Going to stop paying taxes? No? Well, then why should my roommate, an avid smoker himself, stop paying his friend in exchange for weed that he grows himself? Hell, why shouldn’t he start paying actual gang members for drugs?
(Now, since he doesn’t do the latter, and he’s one hundred percent sure what the grower does with the money, can he get one of those free passes you’re offering? I mean, he wants nothing more than a free pass to smoke marijuana from one of his moral superiors).
Sorry for the shortness of this post. I gotta go run over a tricycle riding girl, shoot my roommate with the loaded gun I have sitting in my desk, knock up a twelve year old, and write my monthly check to Osama Bin Laden. I hope you understand.
Just out of curiosity, what does this post have to do with anything? Surely you understand 99% of the drug trade has nothting to do with your pal Skeeter.
I swear, on a messageboard charged with fighting ignorance, I see a lot of ridiculous slippery-slope bullshit.
I don’t buy any boods by Nabisco or Kraft, as they are owned by Big Tobacco, who kills 400,000 American nicotine addicts yearly.
BTW anyone who paid $20 for LSD was robbed. If alchohol prohibition were in effect again, you could easily rant “Drink a beer, support a terrorist.” But nice try. Hope you feel better now.
SUV’s aren’t so bad. You can fit almost 25 dead terrorists in the back; and if you fold down the seat you can fit their camel.
please, the cost is next to nothing compared to many other resource wasters, but since they are not “en vouge” enough to attack right now, we have to go attack the SUVs because one cut you off once. Why aren’t you going after airlines? They use way more gas!! Or complaining about heating/air conditioning? That uses energy as well, polluting the atmosphere. But it is much easier for you to go “La La La, SUVs suck” then it is to wear a blanket at night, since no one can see you attention whores and say “right on!”
And i proudly buy Nabisco and Kraft, since smoking is a choice, and people who are too stupid to quit deserve to die.
Part of the reason nobody thinks about the responsibility of their actions is because, in general, people do not know the responsibility of their actions. If I buy a litre of gas from Esso rather than Petro-Canada, some money will go towards a company with a strong interest in oil exploration and a history of environmental exploitation. But this is true from any gas station I frequent. I do not like minivans, or SUVs, or wastefulness in general. But the argument the driver of a wasteful SUV or mini-van is more evil than the driver of a Accord or Camry ignores the fact both parties waste resources. Am I less of a robber if I only clean out half the bank?
Most users do not stop for two seconds to link terrorism and drug abuse. Fewer still would care about the link. Hard core users think almost exclusively about the next hit. The “addiction is an illness” defence, though true, does not justify the fact many users simply don’t care about the consequences of their actions.
Ours is a selfish society. I think this is bad. I think my opinion would mean little to a self-righteous SUV driver or junkie. Ignorance has always been a point of view. It’s very hard not to be ignorant, though. I once spent a summer working for Greenpeace – and they certainly were very willing to make scare stories and gross and unfair exaggerations about environmental affairs to stay in business. Who can I rely on to tell me what is evil? Is that the question? And if so, if so, who answers? who answers?
cowgirl, just exactly what am I costing the people around me? Pollution? Talk to the 18 wheeler that runs 19 hours a day, and much of THAT at idle not moving the truck or its cargo in the skightest, and belches out clouds of black smoke at every traffic light. But then I assume your bicycle wouldn’t have arrived from the company that built it, so we can’t crucify THAT group, can we?
The going rate is 5 bucks a tab. You can spend more or less on it, but that’s the going rate, hasn’t changed in years.
Erek
Hamlet: Everyone wants to buy something else, you’re trying to buy moral superiority by selling off your ability to purchase certain products. The thing is you can’t buy moral superiority. You’re not morally superior to any of us. We all want to think that we are sometimes but it’s simply not true.
Your lack of support for Ben and Jerry’s is the most telling part of your entire post. They clearly think that the incarceration of Mumia abu Jamal is unjust, as many people do. The argument is that it was self-defense, the fact that it was a police officer doesn’t make it any less self-defense. Now I don’t really have an opinion either way. However you are claiming that people believing he was defending himself holds some type of amoral consequence, therefore you boycott their product. You are just trying to buy moral superiority, and it can’t be bought. Ben and Jerry’s voiced an opinion that they came to legitimately, you may disagree with it, that doesn’t make you more moral than they are, and boycotting fucking ice cream for it is kind of silly. IF Mumia abu Jamal is not guilty then their stance is perfectly valid, if he is not guilty then they are simply incorrect. Just because he was convicted does not mean anything.
There is no legal and moral equivalency.
Within my morality, I believe that if you are not trying to come to a pragmatic solution to a problem then YOU are in fact in the wrong. You clearly don’t believe this, as you shot down the more pragmatic solution of ending prohibition in favor of blaming the consumer and saying that if they jsut didn’t buy…
However, what I may ask you is what do you think will happen first? Do you think the government will legalize drugs first? or do you think that we will be able to convince all drug users to stop using drugs first? In my mind changing the government is a much more pragmatic solution. Therefore it is the moral course of action. So by MY ethics, you are the one who is amoral in your outright dismissal of the more pragmatic solution.
The largest problem with the drug war is that it’s unwinnable. Therefore it is precisely the fact that drug users KEEP using drugs that will one day have them legal, if everyone stopped using drugs there would be no push to have them be legal, and therefore they would never be legal. Controlling human beings every day social behavior is the worst thing that a government can do. It contributes to many social ills, and just because you don’t like that result doesn’t mean you can dismiss it completely. You may not like the answer of “Stop the War on Drugs” but the reality of the situation is that it’s the only feasible solution to ending the war on drugs. So if you wanted to just give your irrational anger a voice, then you did that admirably. However if you want to have a legitimate discussion with intelligent people about the subject, eliminating the most pragmatic solution right out of the gate is not going to get you very far.
Erek
I agree with you about the drug thing. The drug trade here is completely controlled by the Hell’s Angels.
Now… this may be a small nitpick, but I’m baffled. By the products you say you boycott and those you say you support, I ge the impression you’re interested in non-genetically modified, non-hormonally grown animals, care for the environment, human rights and social issues, and the small family farm.
So, why the heck are you boycotting Ben & Jerry’s? They are sure the only large ice-cream company I know that so closely espouses these ideals. Even if I objected to the Mumia thing (which I hold no opinion on) the good would far outweigh the bad.
Uggh, a couple corrections:
There is no legal and moral equivalency means that just because something is illegal doesn’t make it immoral.
Should read: You may not like the answer of “Stop the War on Drugs” but the reality of the situation is that it’s the only feasible solution to ending the violence perpetuated by the black market.
Erek
Is the United States the only country with Airplanes? The only one with heaters and air conditioning?
No? Then why is the United States using so much more energy than the rest of the world?
**
I hope you don’t mean to imply that it is because of SUVs, this thread is absurd enough.
Well I think that comparing the waste of airplanes to SUVs is pretty ludicrous too. An airplane gets hundreds of people thousands of miles, as opposed to an SUV who’s capability can be matched by much less wasteful vehicles. I’m not saying SUVs are NEVER useful, but mostly they aren’t.
Erek
Oh well,
First, if marijuana was legalized, the criminal element would be removed. Ecstacy was legal for many years before the paternal Federal government stepped in. People used to buy the substance in a bar, yuppies paid for it with their American Express. There was no stigma attached to it, and no crisis or epidemic like we are seeing now with the X hysteria! (Oh God! My Jeremy is dead because he ate 12 X pills and danced his head off to Dr. Dre)
If “dangerous” drugs like cocaine and herion was decriminalized, healthy people (especially the children, WE MUST SAVE THE CHILDREN!) would see these sick people and not desire to become like them. There is no lure, because the drugs are legal and the damage is seen firsthand.
I am an American living in China, and here there is no drinking age. A five year old child can buy beer or booze here if he has the money. But, I have yet to see any drunk teenagers or kids in bars. The lure is not there. Kids here realize that drunkenness is unhealthy and that beer (pijou) makes you fat! But, drugs in China are dealt with hard and there is a rise in addictions in this society.
If someone wants to pay 100 dollars a week in gas for their SUV that is their right. Do you want to enact a law stating that every adult is entitled to one car only and that every car to be equipped with no bigger than a four banger? Personally, when I was in America I hated those damned passenger vans that always carried a bunch of kids with a slow moving soccer mom driving at a snails pace. Ugh!
If I smoke my pot at home, eat Pizza Hut, avoid Tom and Jerry ice cream and drive a car powered by organic apricots, could you leave me alone?