Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Foolishness to the Extreme

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tim McBride
    replied
    Originally posted by Deltapooh
    That's like saying we should legalize all prescription medication to help curve Medicare cost! Instead of going to the doctor, people can visit WebMD, diagnose themselves with whatever, and head to the convenience store for a little nitro.
    Hum, very true; and a good point.

    Advocating legalization of narcotics indicates support for all it's ill effects. The assumption that people will stay away is not a suitable guarantee to warrant such a risking move.
    I would say I warrant people taking responsibilty for there own actions. Alchol is legal and look at its mass of ill effects.

    We would do better not to advocate support for narcotics, and focus our attention on prevention and treatment. This is the only way to reduce the problems illegal narcotics have created and preserve our society.
    Oh I agree that treatment is a good thing. In fact I would say the proper solution will probally be found somewere in the middle of our two sides. Not complete legalization(Some drugs are less harmfull then alchol), coupled with a treatment program for users. I have no problem going after dealers and suppliers though, jsut not with the current scheme of things.


    Saying "too bad" to victims of drug-related crime is probably easier said than done, especially when the victim is some kid who just say a parent murdered by a crackhead.
    Well I geuss said crackhead needs to put up against a wall and shot. Crime happens; you are never, never going to get rid of it.
    Shitty people exist now and always will; desperation for drugs is not an excuse for murder. Anyone who'd murder over drugs would probally murder you over your fries and they deserve nothing less then a quick bullet to the back of the head.


    Narcotics is being used by politicians to restrict civil liberty because we tolerate it. I believe the current war on individual right has nothing to do with our efforts against drugs, and should be addressed justly. Most laws today are written in a manner that encourages abuse because we're too busy complaining about taxes and our own safety to ask questions. We, the people, are solely responsible for the abuse of our rights by the people we elect.
    Let be honest here, we don't all tolerate it; hell some of us disagree with it to the extreme and don't vote for politicains who enact such foolish lawas. But the fact of the matter is the soccer moms and such vote for these people, not a whole hell of a lot I can due about it except vote for good people who want to change things for the better.

    To be honest I see corporate America as equals to the crazy communist guerillas. Why would you want to give them the right to make drugs which will certainly create a loyal, and heavily dependent consumer pool. If you try to resistrict the effects of narcotics, people will likely turn toward those drugs which exceed limits. If you let companies run amuk, we could really run into some problems.
    I fully concede with you that complete legalization is not a good idea. But as bad as corporate America can be at times they are not on par with FARC.

    I don't believe we have much choice. Isolation will bring the big fight to closer to our home. American troops don't have to die. US military air power coupled with joint Colombian-SOF operations, would allow us to strike the enemy in a more concentrated manner than interdiction on the high seas.
    What FARC isn't going to get SAM's? Our SOF people can dodge bullets and grenade attacks? There is no such thing as a safe war.

    To be honest, I understand, and to some extent agree with your position. Yet, before we go off and contribute to the deterioration of our society, America should exhaust all options. I believe that prevention and treatment are the best, yet most complicated options available to us. We should role up our sleeves, view this as a community problem, and work to get rid our society of illegal narcotics.

    It won't be a successful effort, it appears to be a more acceptable option over legalization.
    Hell I agree with some of your points also.

    I think that the solution probally lies somewere inbtween; with some legalization, some de-criminalization and alot of treatment for the users.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltapooh
    replied
    Originally posted by Tim McBride
    Have you ever asked WHY it increases crime? Becuase of the money involved. For most people the Money does not outwiegh the risk. But if you are poor, with no future the risk is worth it. You can make more money selling drugs in 1 day then a month at flipping burgers! So if the operations are int he hands of companies and the product can be bought any where, I think you could see the disapearance of the gang and cartel related side of the violence. Beer and tobacco companies are not involved in drive by shootings.
    That's like saying we should legalize all prescription medication to help curve Medicare cost! Instead of going to the doctor, people can visit WebMD, diagnose themselves with whatever, and head to the convenience store for a little nitro.

    Advocating legalization of narcotics indicates support for all it's ill effects. The assumption that people will stay away is not a suitable guarantee to warrant such a risking move.

    We would do better not to advocate support for narcotics, and focus our attention on prevention and treatment. This is the only way to reduce the problems illegal narcotics have created and preserve our society.

    Originally posted by Tim McBride
    As for the property crime it too would drecrease, with the legalization would come the inetable cost reduction, resulting in SOME lessening of the property crime. FOr the rest well too bad, the cost of freedoms. If politicians allowed people the freedoms to be armed in these area I figure you'd see lots of dead perps.
    Saying "too bad" to victims of drug-related crime is probably easier said than done, especially when the victim is some kid who just say a parent murdered by a crackhead.

    Originally posted by Tim McBride
    Legalizing Drugs wouldn't solve all the problems but its a hell of alot better then destroying the rights of citizens and basiclly promoting a violent market system of drug dealers.
    Narcotics is being used by politicians to restrict civil liberty because we tolerate it. I believe the current war on individual right has nothing to do with our efforts against drugs, and should be addressed justly. Most laws today are written in a manner that encourages abuse because we're too busy complaining about taxes and our own safety to ask questions. We, the people, are solely responsible for the abuse of our rights by the people we elect.



    Originally posted by Tim McBride
    But if the drugs were legal WHY would American consumers be buying them from some crazy communist gruellias?
    Cut the funding and FARC is hogtied.
    To be honest I see corporate America as equals to the crazy communist guerillas. Why would you want to give them the right to make drugs which will certainly create a loyal, and heavily dependent consumer pool. If you try to resistrict the effects of narcotics, people will likely turn toward those drugs which exceed limits. If you let companies run amuk, we could really run into some problems.

    Originally posted by Tim McBride
    I for one don't want to see troops toying in a foreign governments internal business strictly for the effort to "Fight Drugs". I don't see the need for US troops to die in Columbia to fight a drug war that is doing no good.
    I don't believe we have much choice. Isolation will bring the big fight to closer to our home. American troops don't have to die. US military air power coupled with joint Colombian-SOF operations, would allow us to strike the enemy in a more concentrated manner than interdiction on the high seas.

    To be honest, I understand, and to some extent agree with your position. Yet, before we go off and contribute to the deterioration of our society, America should exhaust all options. I believe that prevention and treatment are the best, yet most complicated options available to us. We should role up our sleeves, view this as a community problem, and work to get rid our society of illegal narcotics.

    It won't be a successful effort, it appears to be a more acceptable option over legalization.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim McBride
    replied
    Originally posted by JAMiAM
    You are sooooooo behind the times, Big Dog. Ambien is the drug of choice among Republicans. Side effects include such symptoms such as "Daytime drowsiness, Dizziness, Lightheadedness, Difficulty with coordination..." It is assumed at this point that any similarity between Ambien addicts and figureheads acting as presidents of large, nuclear weapon armed nations is entirely coincidental.

    Though...this might explain a lot of recent history..."People who have been dependent on alcohol or other drugs in the past may have a greater chance of becoming addicted to Ambien. Some people using Ambien have experienced unusual changes in their thinking and/or behavior."
    Here I thought you had to use cocaine to be a Republican? A little pot or acid qualifies you for the Democrats I think.....

    Leave a comment:


  • JAMiAM
    replied
    Originally posted by BigDog
    Tim and Jam the powers that be know who you are. Soon you too can be on Prozac and voting Republican. Just rember to smile glassy eyed and wave the flag. All will be well.
    You are sooooooo behind the times, Big Dog. Ambien is the drug of choice among Republicans. Side effects include such symptoms such as "Daytime drowsiness, Dizziness, Lightheadedness, Difficulty with coordination..." It is assumed at this point that any similarity between Ambien addicts and figureheads acting as presidents of large, nuclear weapon armed nations is entirely coincidental.

    Though...this might explain a lot of recent history..."People who have been dependent on alcohol or other drugs in the past may have a greater chance of becoming addicted to Ambien. Some people using Ambien have experienced unusual changes in their thinking and/or behavior."

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim McBride
    replied
    Originally posted by Deltapooh
    There are no easy solutions to the problem in Colombia, but I don't believe abandoning the war on drugs is the appropriate course of action. Narcotics do effect communities, increasing violent and personal property crimes.
    Have you ever asked WHY it increases crime? Becuase of the money involved. For most people the Money does not outwiegh the risk. But if you are poor, with no future the risk is worth it. You can make more money selling drugs in 1 day then a month at flipping burgers! So if the operations are int he hands of companies and the product can be bought any where, I think you could see the disapearance of the gang and cartel related side of the violence. Beer and tobacco companies are not involved in drive by shootings.

    As for the property crime it too would drecrease, with the legalization would come the inetable cost reduction, resulting in SOME lessening of the property crime. FOr the rest well too bad, the cost of freedoms. If politicians allowed people the freedoms to be armed in these area I figure you'd see lots of dead perps.

    Legalizing Drugs wouldn't solve all the problems but its a hell of alot better then destroying the rights of citizens and basiclly promoting a violent market system of drug dealers.

    Domestically, America needs to realize that expanding the size and authority of law enforcement is a futile effort. Funds would be better spent on prevention and treatment. Stiff jail sentences are "feel good" measures that do little to actually improve the security and welfare of our society, which is in-part the objective of our justice system.
    I 100% agree.

    As for Colombia, the US needs to make drastic changes in our foriegn policy. Right now, our strategy, and that of Colombia is shaped not by the enemy, but by American laws. US aide can only be used to combat illegal narcotics. This rule places FARC out of bounds of any narcotic's operation.
    But if the drugs were legal WHY would American consumers be buying them from some crazy communist gruellias?
    Cut the funding and FARC is hogtied.

    While I understand the gist of this rule, I can't say it should purtain to events in Colombia. FARC has decided to use narcotics as their primary means of financial support, replacing kidnapping. Defeating FARC is critical to the success of our efforts to curve the flood of illegal narcotics streaming out of Colombia. We should make use of the risk America accepted by supporting initiatives like "Plan Colombia". We encouaged international support, which in turn committed the country even more to the effort.

    The US should expand the use of special operations forces against FARC. We should also use our air power to help Colombian officials dominate the ground. Meantime, we should consider developing methods to contain FARC's control to Colombia. This would likely require expanding support to her neighbors, but again, this is an acceptable risk given the commitment we've already signed on to.
    I for one don't want to see troops toying in a foreign governments internal business strictly for the effort to "Fight Drugs". I don't see the need for US troops to die in Columbia to fight a drug war that is doing no good.

    _Tim

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck?
    replied
    This entire 'drug war' is a sham. If people can't get their herion or cocaine, they will sniff glue or find some other material for a high. Any type of anti-drug measure should be weighed for its cost and benefit. If the cost outweighs the benefit, the law should be dropped from the books.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deltapooh
    replied
    There are no easy solutions to the problem in Colombia, but I don't believe abandoning the war on drugs is the appropriate course of action. Narcotics do effect communities, increasing violent and personal property crimes.

    Domestically, America needs to realize that expanding the size and authority of law enforcement is a futile effort. Funds would be better spent on prevention and treatment. Stiff jail sentences are "feel good" measures that do little to actually improve the security and welfare of our society, which is in-part the objective of our justice system.

    As for Colombia, the US needs to make drastic changes in our foriegn policy. Right now, our strategy, and that of Colombia is shaped not by the enemy, but by American laws. US aide can only be used to combat illegal narcotics. This rule places FARC out of bounds of any narcotic's operation.

    While I understand the gist of this rule, I can't say it should purtain to events in Colombia. FARC has decided to use narcotics as their primary means of financial support, replacing kidnapping. Defeating FARC is critical to the success of our efforts to curve the flood of illegal narcotics streaming out of Colombia. We should make use of the risk America accepted by supporting initiatives like "Plan Colombia". We encouaged international support, which in turn committed the country even more to the effort.

    The US should expand the use of special operations forces against FARC. We should also use our air power to help Colombian officials dominate the ground. Meantime, we should consider developing methods to contain FARC's control to Colombia. This would likely require expanding support to her neighbors, but again, this is an acceptable risk given the commitment we've already signed on to.

    Leave a comment:


  • BigDog
    replied
    Tim and Jam the powers that be know who you are. Soon you too can be on Prozac and voting Republican. Just rember to smile glassy eyed and wave the flag. All will be well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim McBride
    replied
    Originally posted by JAMiAM
    It's hard to control all those dissident minds when they are using such a variety of non-sanctioned drugs, Tim. If they start making their own choices, you never know where it might lead. People might actually start thinking for themselves...
    WHAT? Damm me thinking people should have to make there own choices and then live with them........
    War on Drugs = War on your Rights

    Leave a comment:


  • MikeJ
    replied
    Originally posted by Cheetah772
    Colombia is not a loyal ally, not at all. When Pablo Escabor threatened to take over Colombia, the Colombian government felt it was in its best interest to cooperate with the USA otherwise it might face unwarranted US operations into Colombia that would have effectively killed off Colombian government.
    Do you think anyone likes taking orders from the USA? They are loyal because they have to be which is all that matters. I mean you practically run their military already.

    I would hardly call Colombian government a staunch ally on terrorism. The reason they have been failing in the war on drugs is simply because they refuse to take tougher measures. Moreover, the Colombian government has been so thoroughly corrupted by the drugs, I wouldn't even call it a government anymore.
    They're one of the, if not the longest standing democracy in Latin America. If you think corruption erodes that, then I'd wager to say the US, Canada and EU are not democratic.

    Tougher measures? They already burn thousands of acres of drug crops every year, despite the fact that this forces a large number of the already poor Columbia rural residents into extreme poverty and starvation. The US actually funds programs to try to make planting other crops profitable, but it's pointless - there's no market for them (this is where Western agricultural subsidies come in).

    I don't know what more extreme measures are, but whatever they are they would have to be much more damaging to Columbians than current measures (which are already harsh). It's unreasonable to expect Columbia to starve their farmers so that suburban American kids don't blow their weekly allowances on drugs.

    A loyal ally? Ha! Get your facts straight, please.
    Facts are facts - they take orders from Washington. If you don't consider that a loyal ally, then who do you consider a loyal ally? List them.

    As I said later in my post, I admitted setting off a nuke was a little too extreme, but it was to show my point that the tougher measures are needed to win this drug war.
    Tougher measures isn't going to win the drug war. The only way to 'win' the drug war is to remove the demand for them... and the chance of that ever dissapearing completely is about as good as my odds of getting laid by the entire ensemble of Victoria Secrets models.

    But if you want to throw more junkies in jail, go for it. It's your tax dollars at work and we all know how much you like taxes.

    Leave a comment:


  • JAMiAM
    replied
    Originally posted by Tim McBride
    Why do we need this war in the first place?

    So that a large portion of our population can be imprisoned?
    So that local police forces can storm Public Schools with gun drawn?
    So that the Police can now execute a No-Knock warrant?
    So that our Federal government can ignore the Posse COmatatus Act if drugs are involved?
    Etc. Etc. Etc.

    Forbid that we allow people to make their own choices.
    It's hard to control all those dissident minds when they are using such a variety of non-sanctioned drugs, Tim. If they start making their own choices, you never know where it might lead. People might actually start thinking for themselves...

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim McBride
    replied
    Originally posted by Cheetah772
    ...tougher measures are needed to win this drug war.
    Why do we need this war in the first place?

    So that a large portion of our population can be imprisoned?
    So that local police forces can storm Public Schools with gun drawn?
    So that the Police can now execute a No-Knock warrant?
    So that our Federal government can ignore the Posse COmatatus Act if drugs are involved?
    Etc. Etc. Etc.

    Forbid that we allow people to make their own choices.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck?
    replied
    Colombia is a very poor country and illegal drugs are worth a lot. If we can't clean up our drug problem, do you really expect they can? It's quite unrealistic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cheetah772
    replied
    Originally posted by MikeJ
    lol.

    Columbia has been fruitlessly fighting them tooth and nail for decades. If you want to threaten a loyal ally with a nuke, go ahead. And the rebels will call your bluff because no sane American president would nuke Columbia under the present circumstances.
    Colombia is not a loyal ally, not at all. When Pablo Escabor threatened to take over Colombia, the Colombian government felt it was in its best interest to cooperate with the USA otherwise it might face unwarranted US operations into Colombia that would have effectively killed off Colombian government.

    I would hardly call Colombian government a staunch ally on terrorism. The reason they have been failing in the war on drugs is simply because they refuse to take tougher measures. Moreover, the Colombian government has been so thoroughly corrupted by the drugs, I wouldn't even call it a government anymore.

    A loyal ally? Ha! Get your facts straight, please.

    As I said later in my post, I admitted setting off a nuke was a little too extreme, but it was to show my point that the tougher measures are needed to win this drug war.

    Dan

    Leave a comment:


  • MikeJ
    replied
    Originally posted by Cheetah772
    Personally for me, I feel that we should threaten Colombia with a single nuclear bomb, if it doesn't stop shipping the drugs to north, or do more in getting rid of the rebels. The rebels would scramble to save themselves, after all, in the criminal world, self-preservation is a must to acquire otherwise a criminal will be thrown to the wolves with little or no mercy.
    lol.

    Columbia has been fruitlessly fighting them tooth and nail for decades. If you want to threaten a loyal ally with a nuke, go ahead. And the rebels will call your bluff because no sane American president would nuke Columbia under the present circumstances.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X