Why the drug war is a legitimate war against terrorism

Post Reply New Topic

All you want to do is HARASS, don't have the intlectual ability to speak to me properly go sit in a corner. Dumb people are commonly the ones who stir troubles for everyone else. It's easy to pick out the one who is obviously different in opinion and trash them like some of you are doing.

I have had a few good conversations here, the others, the three are just needing sensativity training.

You are welcome, Aspen. I don't really care to act like this, but sometimes when in a no-win situation, you just make the choice.

I believe that any person has a lot easier time pretending to be lame than they do pretending to be more able than they actually are. sc's syntax, grammar, spelling, and coherence steadily degraded from his first message on this thread. They went from better than acceptable to about half gibberish. Reading such stuff doesn't bother me so much when I know that it's all someone can do, but sc proved that he could do better when he started. After that, when it deteriorated, it got on my nerves to try to figure out what he said. I've seen the tactic before.

Last edited by Remnant on 07 Feb 2006, 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

More proof.

More proof of exactly what?

You give it, you get it back.

I am going to admit that I can't excuse all of my behavior here. The things that "sc" advocates unnerve me greatly. Going back to attempting to argue the merits of his case, everything he advocates excuses the compromise of basic principles of human freedoms, those guaranteed by UN treaties and the US Constitution, and those not guaranteed in writing but recognized in various ways. He asks us, as many have, to set aside even our Constitutionally guaranteed rights because a drug may cause some people some harm. By the measures in his rhetoric, we are supposed to set aside civil rights that people have fought and died for, civil rights that are absolute, for reasons that may seem compelling to some. He tells us that these reasons are more compelling than the reasons that we have civil rights in the first place, or at least that is implied, otherwise he wouldn't be asking us to set them aside at all.

And this gripe about us picking on his spelling and grammar is pretty lame when he has several long messages that contain pretty much letter-perfect spelling, grammar, and syntax with correct use of complex sentence structures. The deterioration afterwards is what I pointed out, and it is indeed like someone came back from lunch totally plastered on gin.

The rhetoric and the character that sc projects are both typical of people who would ask the rest of us to do stupid things. It is a stupid thing to give up your civil rights because your neighbor might be smoking marijuana. It gets somewhat stupider when you find out that you have given up the opportunity to have cheap and readily available energy to heat your home that does not cause so much harm to the environment. All of these ideas of moral damage, alleged schizophrenia, and other stuff become a lot less credible when they come from someone who has asked you to give up a lot of your freedoms and seems to have a vested interest. In this case, I don't mean just "sc" but the various interests that keep pushing for drug laws.

This topic is over... two or so individuals partook well from my recollection, but I am moving on.

Bringing up all these things at once is just to much, what do you want?

If you want to talk the last thing to do is any way be a forceful ideologist, instead let's dissect intellectually every issue you bring up that is important. That's interesting not debating through the idiocies of conflicts.

I'm a neutral mind when just dissecting issues.
------------------------------------------------------

We can begin a new topic within this topic, itemize the most important societal issues not me and the issues. I will reply responding to each or just a few. Don't make it personal, thats a bad decision especially directly.

I can spend 20-30 minutes just editing a writing of mine, I will read it back as I intended to write it, but after re-reading it something does not make sense. Mixed expressive language disorder, the more I write the better it gets. IT is frustrating so just be patient otherwise do not talk to me.

Let's start with up to 3 relevant and related issues. Not me and the issues as I change my mind all the time.

Keep trying.

You're the one who wanted to tell us that drug use is sponsoring terrorism. Then when someone replied to that you accused him of being off-topic.

The topic is on. I contend that using oil is much more conducive to sponsoring terrorism than is using drugs. It's a little bit obvious.

Incorrect, The topic was about the war on drugs as terrorism, a form of harsher crime.

Terrorism as criminalism however some things need to be differenciated. Off topic was a correct statement, it went into wire tapping so I changed my mind and discussed it.

Why do you want to continue with this. Intlectualize or not, bring up the issues and let's talk about them.

I'm willing to forgive your actions as emotion, as I really do not think you would not say them if there was no emotion.

Emotion can be pashion, you believe things a certai nway as all do about government, laws and society. All will differ.

1. Wire-tapping was brought up.

What say you?

I say there needs to be judges protecting not only the civil liberties of the individual but in whole psychologically. Judges are like advocates and there is a delinquent balance between the law and civil liberties. I'm not a lawyer.

2. The war on drugs as a war on a type of terrorism.

Weapons are used by drug dealers, not by them all. People die, lives are ruined.

Comparison to international terrorism (crime, criminalism, criminology)

A spooky man with a long beard saying a bunch of radical nonsense that the news plays and people take seriously. There is real terrorism and there is hype. I think that if you look at what happened with 9/11 it was just a building, but that building crashing changed the world.

Did the government overreact? The people did, I remember.

Terrorism is a terminological archetype, a broadened terminology that has been used and applied to relating things. Terrorism is the reality of the world more so then post 9/11.

I know to support the war mentality fear must be applied, whether it is true or not and or overreacted upon is not known. Without fear inaction is the mentality, terrorism existed prior to 9/11.

I did not like Kerry or Bush in the elections, I'm not into politics really though some issues have been political.

Note: A drug dealer is not a terrorist nor is a user, criminals yes. However illegal substances can fund terrorism, they might already. I have not read inteligence reports, it's not my interest yet but all my interest thus far would make this one interest combine with the rest.

Ok, I am going to jump in on this topic.

1. Many presidents have used wire-tapping in the past and wire-tapping is typically not a threat unless the person is talking about a crime. The government has neither the time nor the resources to listen to every conversation and the average government worker neither knows nor cares who you are. Pretty much my attitude is that if you have not or are not going to commit a crime then there is nothing to worry about.

2. Illegal drugs really can fund terrorism, opium was a major export of Afghanistan if I can remember correctly and Afghanistan was also the country that was controlled by the Taliban. Considering that drugs are generally a bad thing for society, the fact that drugs are a source of revenue for outside interests that tend to not be the friendliest is something to take into account.

Freedom does not mean the right to put any chemical you want into your bloodstream. I don't think that drugs were what drove our forefathers to fight for freedom. No, instead our forefathers died for low taxes! Oh yeah, gotta love this country!

The Taliban was an evil, oppressive force in Afganistan. That being said, Opium cultivation and Heroin manufacturing were reduced to historical minimums while The Taliban was in control of Afganistan. This reduction has not been seen either prior to, or since their reign. Perhaps it's the paradigm we are presently pursuing in this country.

SC,
I like the fact that you are making a thread trying to combine two topics that rarely get combined.
We always need new ideas out here.


What drugs is it that you think should be illegal SC?
I will assume that you are talking about all illegal drugs.

The connection between the "war on drugs" and the "war on terrorism" is that some countries namely Afghanistan have supplied drugs to the US to fund their operations.
That is acceptable to be correct.

Except, there are many poor farmers out there that do not have any connection to terrorist groups and farm illegal drugs because they get more money.
How can we help them?

That is quite interesting. I did not know that. I guess opium production would have been affected by the mindless tyranny of the Taliban. Interesting.


Yeah, there is a problem with poor farmers trying to earn a profit. This problem can be dealt with easily and efficiently through depopulation.

Sung to unknown but upbeat lyrics
De pop u laaa tion!
De pop u laaa tion!
Finding a solution to help our very nation!
De pop u laaa tion!
De pop u laaa tion!
Killing the people we don't need!
(continues to go on for endless refrains)

Ok, that was a bit of dark humor right there.

Seriously though, the thing that needs to be done is that we need to get their infant industries going through construction efforts and encouraging industrial growth in the region. If these people had some good industry going then they might not need all the farming. The only problem is the ecological effect of these new industries and the effects on the demand for certain vital resources, this of course could be solved by introducing some ecologically friendly industries that use soy fuel. When we go poor from doing all of that for these foreign countries we thank goodness that we did not bolster their military and invade to sell all of the infrastructure that we put in place to help the developing nations. Then once all of that has happened we curse ourselves heartily because we have just shot ourselves in the foot and we go on to plan B.....

Sung, once again, to unknown but upbeat lyrics
De pop u laaa tion!
De pop u laaa tion!
Finding a solution to help our very nation!
De pop u laaa tion!
De pop u laaa tion!
Killing the people that don't need!
(continues to go on for endless refrains)

Ok, still more dark humor but I do sometimes wonder whether the world really is overpopulated. A world with finite resources cannot grow infinitely, I just sort of wonder if we still have sustainable growth. I do not really advocate depopulation though, at least I would never do so honestly and openly. I just really don't know that we have sufficient resources to allow everyone to have a good lifestyle in the long run. The entire world cannot have US-style hedonistic lifestyles.

What's bothering me is that SC started with that topic then he busted someone's chops for actually speaking on that topic, telling him that he was off-topic. That's what I call baiting and switching.

So smegging what if drugs are used to fund terrorism? There is not one class of consumer commodities that has not been used that way, not fuel, not food, not durable goods, not anything. So what is the use of talking about drugs being used to fund terrorism? Drugs are a billion dollar market. Oil is a trillion dollar market and most terrorism these days is funded by OIL money. How about let's stop using foreign oil? You know what? You know what? Letting people grow their own marijuana cuts down dependence on foreign oil, cutting out one source of funding for terrorism. For recreational drug use, domestically grown marijuana will cut down on profits that go overseas to terrorists. So how would legalization provide more support for terrorism? By magic?

Well, I have absolutely no problem with any non-recreational use of marijuana. I just don't like the recreational use of marijuana. Besides, I seriously doubt that your major concern about marijuana is cheap fuel either. We could technically have the cheap fuel without the legalization of recreational marijuana use, I mean, unless this fuel makes everyone high. I do sort of wonder whether the sources take everything into account. Like the energy costs for raising their "superplant" because raising marijuana requires fuel in order to do it or at least it would for modern farming techniques to be used. I am only opposed to the recreational use of marijuana, I support medicinal marijuana and I would even support medicinal crack or heroin if I thought that people needed such as medication. I just don't think that drugs for recreational purposes are a good thing.

I do not bait and switch. I have given the person a chance to reconcile his troubles with his delusions of me. I am not the person he perceives I am and continually manipulates and twists what I say.

And I frankly don't see the moral damage that you think might be caused by recreational use of marijuana. You would take away my ability to heat my house for the winter because you think there would be moral damage from smoking marijuana?

Human freedom is a bit more than just an ideal that you grow out of when you have a religion and bux. It is a very good primary reason for demanding freedom to use the drugs of our choice. The fuel thing is also a very good primary reason for demanding the freedom to grow a plant, because any decent size house is costing upwards of $400 American to heat in the winter when it's not even a particularly severe winter and hemp oil comes in huge quantities at a net gain in usable energy, and it's renewable and doesn't require a lot of modern farming techniques. Refinding 7000 pounds of your own fuel for the winter using hempseed is not horribly difficult if you have to harvest it by hand.

Freedom from people who yell about "moral damage" is a very good thing to campaign for, too.