.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: jpuesan
    New Today: 1
    New Yesterday: 1
    Overall: 697

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - ForeignPolicy.com: Think Again: Drugs

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » Political Arena
    Author Message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:28 am Reply with quote

    An awesome critique from Ethan Nadelmann of failed US prohibition policies and their impact on crime, terrorism, misery and poverty around the world

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3932&page=0

    Tell it how it is Cool
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:09 pm Reply with quote

    ... Yet another skewed cover story in support of dumbing down the community. Socialists love drug choices so they make more people dumber and more reliant on community support and smaller group of controlling influences.

    A HUGE problem in Britain and other western nations is that rot from within of a nation losing its self-identity because so many overliberalized people want to run off and do their own thoughtless things while they in effect attack against higher cultural values, and lead a ruinous route to destroying their own higher culture (such as the British stiff upper lip control of emotions and bad behavior), because they slowly lose the ability to stand up for what is right, including clean and sober living.

    Look at the idiocy of too much liberalism losing the common sense in these articles. Any means to punish and deter wrongdoing is further being excused and dismissed as continuing the problems. Now jail is seen as promoting more crime and misspent money, which is totally ridiculous despite the fact that crime is never an ending problem, especially enhanced by an element of society losing its will to confront very bad and destructive behavior that includes drugs.

    http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=148335

    Even dangerous terrorists are being excused from punishment in this circular reasoning problem that an element of society's idiots fashion up into ludicrous lack of will to do the right thing in spite of great cost.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7058955.stm

    ... Examples of rot from within a society trying to blame its problems on others.

    Why legislate motorcycle helmets? Why legislate seatbelt use? Why legislate so much? Because there are too many people too thoughtless to realize the overwhelming benefits of such practices where common sense should otherwise rule in an ideal world.

    Democracy thrives on smart people, personal discipline, moral fiber of honesty (for will of justice), sobriety (not using drugs), other better judgment, and moderacy, priceless commodities that financial numbers can never lessen. Drugs directly attack the spirit of democracy's potency through intelligent and wise people free from additional personal instabilities exacerbated by recreational drug use.

    Legalizing drugs is as dumb if not dumber than the global warming myth, and it tries to use inflated numbers that have no clear definition other than making VERY crude assumptions.

    The real issue here is the alarming idiocy of so many people who try to avoid and spin reality (by trying to ignore it) by taking drugs, because they can't cope without them in insisting on having to use them. ... Not always as a chemical addiction, but certainly as means to artificially quieten their troubled minds that they further harm with putting pollutants into their brains and other organs. The true irony is that their minds become far more restless and less functional in terms of lesser emotional and intellectual stability because off their drug use.

    Numbers mean little against the need to support higher culture -- not the class system -- wisdom of individuals and intellect that drugs always deplete.

    Every damned person (of very many) whom I know who got into drugs lessened their intellects and changed their personalities and personal perfomances much for the worse. I can cite hugely many cases.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:38 pm Reply with quote

    Well that bit of Grav-baiting sure hit the spot! Laughing

    If individuals want to alter their consciousness without harming anyone else, I fail to see how the State has a right to prevent them. In the Dark Ages, when the Church was all powerful, it was accepted that individuals do not own their own bodies. The Church did. That was why the Church was free to torture, mutilate and execute members of it's "flock" (sic) who spoke out against them. The same principle applied to Soviet style systems and led to the gulags and genocide of the Stalin years.

    The US is founded on the Enlightenment principle of the separation of church and state. Citizens have an enshrined right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

    The US sponsored "war on drugs" is a war on individual's constitutional rights and is distinctly Un-American. It is a product of the Puritan Temperance movement which was responsible for Prohibition of alcohol, which single handedly created organised crime almost overnight.

    More good arguments on legalisation (UK style) at

    http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Policy_General_DrugStategyConsultationSubmission.htm

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:18 pm Reply with quote

    There is irrationality in the overly selfish interest that overly liberalized people tout. Lots of little problems add up to be hugely expensive, much beyond other required battles that must be paid for in a democracy, including fighting crime and other vices including poisoning people's minds with drugs.

    Again, democracy thrives on optimally wise and intelligent people. It does not thrive on chaotic interests dumbing down and fracturing a nation to allow few and fewer people to think rationally without drugs clouding their minds.

    Western nations are under far more pressure to increase technical skills in big numbers, since Far and Near East nations are steadily increasing over labor market competition in manufacturing, further causing huge problems for the West in pushing far too much standard of living increase that punishes the West in resources competition in time -- oil has now become a scare for India and China rapidly growing, further fostering the global warming lies. This transition in maintaining Western leads in innovation and technology cannot be done with a bunch of dumbed-out people with minds clouded with drugs.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:44 am Reply with quote

    Well I never thought of myself as "overly liberalised" but I guess I must be.....

    I must admit I have heard many arguments advanced by the prohibitionists, most connected around "sapping the morale of the nation" and that sort of patrician Colonel Bufton-Tufton type rhetoric, but I have not heard an argument stating that prohibition is necessary to maintain the cultural and industrial hegemony of the West over the developing world. That is pretty novel.

    Personally I wouldn't deny those City boys an odd line of coke after a hard days trading and making dosh. Irrespective of what one thinks of them, they are industrious, deserve the odd reward and certainly don't deserve to be criminalised over their choice of tipple by Puritan based laws from another era. They may even be more efficient and industrious due to their said dabbling.

    No, a classical liberal, free market approach is definately what is required here, in order to break the back of organised crime, free up the prisons and tax an industry equivalent in size to the oil and gas sector. When a kilo of sugar costs more to manufacture than a kilo of coke this is a no-brainer. Milton Friedman agrees and he is never wrong!Wink

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:03 am Reply with quote

    Those foolish people doing cocaine are not industrious over time for the effects of drugs to set in.

    Quote:
    No matter how cocaine is taken, it is dangerous. Some of the most common serious problems include

    * Heart problems, including heart attacks
    * Respiratory effects, including respiratory failure
    * Nervous system problems, including strokes
    * Digestive problems

    Any of these can be fatal. Using cocaine with alcohol is a common cause of drug-related death.

    National Institute on Drug Abuse SRC http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cocaine.html


    People are stupid to invite such problems, and drugs do further cloud the mind over time, including cocaine use.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:01 am Reply with quote

    Just because something is foolish does not mean the State has a right to ban it and criminalise its citizens for doing it. This is a socialist approach. Everything worth doing in life contains an element of risk and deaths from currently "illegal" drugs pail into insignificance compared to legal drugs:

    http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_FactResearchGuide_DrugRelatedDeaths.htm

    As there were twice the numbers of deaths from paracetamol and anti-depressants compared to coke then by your logic these two should be banned as well. Deaths from alcohol and tobacco are off the scale in comparison. By your argument (and NIDA are paid to come out with quotes like that) because there is risk, then all these substances should be banned.

    You guys tried that with alcohol and look what happened.

    Sensible governments do not ban the free choices of tipple of their citizenry. They tax and regulate them. This is called "control" and is the opposite of criminalisation which translates in practise as "no control whatsoever".

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:30 pm Reply with quote

    This is NOT a socialist approach when PUBLIC SAFETY and HEALTH are an issue, because the effects of drugs and smoking ABSOLUTELY deplete public safety and health when addiction leads to criminal activity from paranoia brought on by drugs. Smoking pot is also problematic over long time, with people becoming more forgetful and even giddy with more regular use.

    MENTAL HEALTH is also an issue, because drugs put POISONs into the body that affect mental capabilities of the brain and other organs.

    These are valid concerns for any non-socialist approach and certainly do not involve infringing on rights. There never was a clause in any stated right to free drug use. Free speech is NOT a free right to use drugs. Notes found of Thomas Jefferson's idea of "pursuit of Happiness" was never about free drug use. It was about the accumulation of wealth free of a European and British class system, and personal intellectual property (including personal opinions).

    http://www.stewards.us/cornerstone/aug1996/csaug96-5.asp

    Quote:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (Note: the original hand-written text ended on the phrase "the pursuit of property" rather than "the pursuit of Happiness" but the phrase was changed in subsequent copies in part because it was broader. The latter phrase is used today).SOURCE


    The original drafts of the Constitution make it clear about the intentions of the pursuit of Happiness as in the spirit the pursuit of property, yet extended to the idea of personable properties of life and opinion free of class restrictions, seen as happiness in those times.

    There is more that I can dig up to make this clearer, but I do not have time now.
    View user's profile Send private message
    sonicbomb
    Forum Admin
    Forum Admin


    Joined: Aug 06, 2006
    Posts: 1712
    Location: UK

    PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:50 pm Reply with quote

    If I could interject with what may seem a simple point. I think what FF is trying to say is that completely independent of the whether illegal drugs are bad, is that while they are not under government control they are under no control whatsoever. Legislation doesn’t necessarily mean endorsement, but removes the revenue stream from the criminals, and allows for the control of these substances in a way that cannot be achieved while they are illegal.

    In my mind the fact that both alcohol and cigarettes ARE extremely damaging and a huge burden on the state, smacks of basic hypocrisy.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:35 pm Reply with quote

    Yes, they are examples of hypocrisy.

    I neither smoke nor drink alcohol for the record. I despise both practices and I've managed to influence close friends to quit smoking here.

    And yes, we do need to legislated to uphold standards of higher culture (and not class influenced tastes). Examples are:

    * the terrible consequences of free drug culture that caused ruinous social problems in Comstock Era USA. Many Mexicans were behind the importation of pot, and Chinese with opium in that era, and it never changed in principle for marihuana. There are records of the chaos that opium caused in the Chinese community in epidemic proportion.

    * the drinking is also not culturally regulated in Finland as well, and drunkenness is in high proportion there, causing many social problems and health problems of people drinking theirselves to death. I know people from Finland in support of this phenomenon which they consider shameful. They all claim that the rampant drunkenness is from great lack of personal discipline and impulse control, therefore not inculcated into the culture.

    * on and on ....

    Dumbing down a nation is not democratic. Socialists want dumber people to leave fewer people in control. It's against personal potential and liberties where people need to make smart decisions in a bicameral, moderate political environment in USA the success it has been.

    People destroy theirselves intellectually, culturally, and personally by not drawing the line on personal behavioral limits. The rest end up having to deal with the burden. Stable society also needs a voice of moderation in personal behavior as well as political questions. Stability of a nation begins with personal moral discipline of masses willing to deal away with corruptions.

    People develop vulnerabilities to demanding drugs and alcohol because they do things that make theirselves feel restless and even feel sickly (with headaches, fuzzing of their minds, and lethargy) inside for the artificial desire to relax, be very temporarily more alert, and escape. Others use drugs to fool theirselves into thinking that drugs make people more alert, which they really destroy when done by drugs like cocaine.
    View user's profile Send private message
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:02 pm Reply with quote

    "I neither smoke nor drink alcohol for the record. I despise both practices and I've managed to influence close friends to quit smoking here. "

    So you wish to force your choices on others? Presumably you also "despise" others who do not wish to follow your choices? Thus your position is based upon personal prejudice rather than a clinical examination of the societal facts at large.

    Whilst you constantly bang on about the evils of "socialism" and state control, your position is more akin to Stalinism rather than the "moderacy" that you assert to the rest of us.

    Should you not wish to mix with drugtakers (that includes smokers and drinkers) you are free to move to Utah or Saudi Arabia and similar cultured places that take the same line. However don't dictate your choices to the rest of the world.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1552
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:07 pm Reply with quote

    I never said what you assume in the worst way.

    I said I despise both PRACTICES (not the people), and said I INFLUENCED, not commanded.

    Everybody with half a wit knows cigarettes are dumb for people in terms of their wider self-interests.

    It just takes a caring friend to keep reminding them in a supportive manner, and I am pleased so many have quit from that support.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Blake
    Tewa (5 mt)


    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 680
    Location: Florida

    PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:43 am Reply with quote

    Graviton wrote:
    I never said what you assume in the worst way.

    I said I despise both PRACTICES (not the people), and said I INFLUENCED, not commanded.

    Everybody with half a wit knows cigarettes are dumb for people in terms of their wider self-interests.

    It just takes a caring friend to keep reminding them in a supportive manner, and I am pleased so many have quit from that support.


    I'll add myself to that list. It was the positive support I received from friends that helped me quit smoking. I smoked from the age of 13 to 25, and never thought I'd be able to stop. I feel much better about myself, and much better physically since I stopped. I'm the feel good story of the summer. Smile

    As far as all this drug talk, this is all I can add.
    http://www.filecabi.net/video/weirdshitex.html
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
    fastfission
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Apr 14, 2007
    Posts: 425
    Location: Arzamas-16

    PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:44 pm Reply with quote

    "I smoked from the age of 13 to 25"

    This must mean that you were breaking the law in buying cigarettes underage and/or having others procure them for you.

    Technically you should have been prosecuted and locked up. In fact I would greatly prefer to see the enforcement system focus it's resources on preventing underage kids accessing drugs of all kind, legal and illegal, rather than prosecuting and incarcerating consenting adults for choices they make freely. Quite clearly the laws of supply and demand operate universally irrespective of whether a substance is presently legal or not. The drug laws have only existed for 80 years or so - they are in every sense an aberration driven by a minority of Puritan types who sought to impose their will and their beliefs upon others.

    For millions of consenting adults around the world the "evil international drug dealer" of Hollywood fame is in fact the best friend they never knew!

    FF
    View user's profile Send private message
    Blake
    Tewa (5 mt)


    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 680
    Location: Florida

    PostPosted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:20 pm Reply with quote

    fastfission wrote:


    This must mean that you were breaking the law in buying cigarettes underage and/or having others procure them for you.


    FF


    Sherlock would be proud FF. Smile
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.12 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::