top
User Name
Pass Word:

home
archives
features
links
users
faqs
registration!
Blatherings

Republicrats hate Americans
Previous | Next by Casey 27 October, 2004 - 6:13 PM

Guess how many people were arrested in 2003 for marijuana violations in the US. Go ahead, guess. Write down the number you come up with. Keep in mind that the population of the US in 2000 was around 280 million. Now click on the comments link for the answer.

755,187 people. This is about the same number of people that live in all of South Dakota. This is also more than the 2000 populations of North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, DC, and Wyoming each.

Do keep this in mind if you were not previously considering a 3rd party candidate for Nov 2.




10/28/2004 >> ledskof

What difference would voting for a 3rd party candidate make for the nov2 election?
The only way to make change in this country this late in the game for this election, is to vote democrat.
Otherwise, we will continue in the direction we have been going which is down into the depths of republican corporatism hell.

I would like nothing more than to have a 3rd party candidate in office. But it's too late for that for this election.

First get a democrat in office. John Kerry is pretty liberal as far as dems go anyhow.

Then we start working on fixing other problems. If the republicans are elected again, being truly patriotic (wanting to reform and make your country better) will become "unamerican" and "terroristic".


10/28/2004 >> Casey

I am more than happy to take a vote away from the democrats, and if it comes to it, let the crazy slide towards conservative religious fundamentalism continue. If this is what it takes for the democrats to fucking wake up to this issue than so be it. The second I hear a major party candidate talking seriously about correcting our drug policy, I'll vote for them. This issue is the elephant in the living room, nobody is talking about it. There are too many people in this country that are being jack-booted and jailed for doing nothing more than minding thier own business and getting high. Some of these people I have known personally nad seen thier lives destroyed by this government. Its wrongness is on the level of human rights violations. Its time for some goddamn righteous indignation.

Think about it, we're talking about a disruption of the lives of almost a million Americans. Not 1000 dead troops in Iraq, not even the remaining 138,000 living ones. The drug war is way more expensive, and effects far more people both in America and around the world, than all the other wars currently being waged world-wide. Its the single biggest crime being perpetrated on humanity today, and no one is talking aboout it.

As they say, if you support prohibition, you are part of the drug problem


10/28/2004 >> Casey

Oh ya, and as far as Kerry being liberal, that's a pile of crap. Here's some relevant facts about his position on the drug war.


10/28/2004 >> ryan

The problem with voting 3rd party this election as with last election: you're essentially voting for Bush by taking a vote away from Kerry. If your goal is to get Bush out of office, vote for Kerry and make sure he's out before going for a 3rd party. I love the ideas of many 3rd parties, but I want Bush out of office first.


10/28/2004 >> ledskof

I agree with Ryan.

And I said "John Kerry is pretty liberal as far as dems go anyhow." I didn't say he was a liberal. I meant he is more liberal than most democrats.

There are a lot more characteristics that make someone liberal than agreeing with Casey, or anyone else on the drug war.

I think the war on drugs is retarded. I think it's a total waste of money and I think drugs should be legal. If anyone really wants to end the war on drugs the easiest and first step I think is to legalize drugs. Then we can start spending that money on educating people on how retarded using drugs is and perhaps augment the quality of their lives to some level where those people don't need drugs. Or even spend that money trying to do something about the hordes of people dying related to cigarettes, alcohol and the crappy foods we have in this country.

But do you think that we can possibly influence the republican party towards that? If so, you are NUTS. There is too much big business making money off of the war on drugs for the rebs to do anything about it. And do you think it will make and difference in anything if you vote 3rd party this election? In the grand scheme, I feel, you have 2 choices: Make no difference at all, or help elect a democrat. Continue at this growth rate of corporatism, or elect a democrat.

v Iraq War:
I don't think I can weigh 755,187 people being arrested for consciously choosing to use an illegal unhealthy drug heavier than 1,111 people who have died. Not to mention dying in a War with an unclear reason. You said their lives have been disrupted but what exactly were the charges? It's not like all these people went long term to prison or were killed. And on top of that are the thousands of Iraqi's who have died in our stupid war. Here's a happy little quote:
"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland said in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.

How far off are they? And we aren't talking about people whose lives are merely "disrupted".

For the most part Casey, I agree with you on the drug issue and as far as 3rd parties go, well I always want to vote 3rd party over anyone else. But this election I feel is WAY too important to vote for a party that we all know won't be elected. So I sacrifice my little tick mark on the 3rd party impossibility meter and give it to the dems this time.


10/28/2004 >> Casey

If anyone really wants to end the war on drugs the easiest and first step I think is to legalize drugs. Then we can start spending that money on educating people on how retarded using drugs is and perhaps augment the quality of their lives to some level where those people don't need drugs.

Yep! That's an idea idea I'd like to hear John Kerry speak. Now how exactly would voting for him make him do that? I think he has to say it before he gets my vote. Oh and btw, voting for a third party is not "essentially voting for Bush". Its voting for a third party. I believe in making politicians work for my vote and not simply voting against the scarier party. I guess that makes me oblivious to how "important" this election is.

I don't think I can weigh 755,187 people being arrested for consciously choosing to use an illegal unhealthy drug heavier than 1,111 people who have died. Not to mention dying in a War with an unclear reason.

Oh okay, so does that mean you think the drug war has a clear reason to it? Going back to the issue of war deaths, what about the 13,000 drug-related murders between 1989 and 2001? Do you think there would be much reason for people to shooot each other over drug deals if we weren't living under prohibition?

I'll bet you good money, really good money that, when the figures become available, we will find that drug-realted murders outnumber American troop deaths in Iraq for the same period of time.

You said their lives have been disrupted but what exactly were the charges? It's not like all these people went long term to prison or were killed.



And it isn't like every soldier who goes to Iraq got killed or had three extended tours either. You make it sound like getting arrested and having to go through a trial and likely losing your job or having property seized is no big deal. Maybe that's a good argument for making alcohol illegal again, I mean after all people who drink are just being self-destructive, so it should be no big deal to disrupt thier lives for thier own good right?



"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq,"



okay right back at ya: ...all illegal and illicit drugs caused 123,000 deaths, the vast majority which were heroin and cocaine. [worldwide, in 2000]



Again, if we weren't living under prohibition, drugs would have no reaosn to be so concentrated (bootleggers sold whiskey instead of beer, because it was easier and more profitable to transport more alcohol per volume that way), drugs would have no reason to vary in dose (no government QC guidelines exist fro illicit drugs as they do for legal ones), and they would have no reason to be cut with all kinds of nasty crap that makes gullible users think they are high instead of simply being poisoned. That death toll is only as high as it is because of the drug war.



Nobody is talking about the drug war, the deadliest and costliest war we've ever lost. Go ahead and vote for John Kerry, but think about these words when your cousin or your friend or your kid gets busted for a joint (a far more likely possibility than thier being sent to Iraq or drafted).


10/28/2004 >> Casey

ah cripes. admin, can I get a close italics after "went long term to prison or were killed."? thanks.


10/28/2004 >> Casey

argh


10/29/2004 >> ben

you need to use the links right above this box, man


10/29/2004 >> Casey

okay okay


10/29/2004 >> ryan

Yes Casey, "essentially voting for Bush" isn't directly giving him a vote but it doesn't give a vote to someone who has even a remote chance of defeating him. Nitpick all you want, but I guarantee that voting third party this election will do nothing to help get Bush out of office. The best a third party can hope for at the moment is to get their 2% of the vote to get federal funding or stay on the ballot or whatever they get for acquiring 1% or 2% of the popular vote.

I hold firm in my belief that voting third party will do nothing but help Bush remain in office one more term, and with a non-divided government (the entire 3-branch system is Republican held currently) you can expect to see an even harder push from them in the fields of abortion, gay marriage, and the laughable "war on terror." Checks and balances are a pipe dream with the current government.

I believe that the person who is to run the country, the COUNTRY ladies and gentlemen, should be SMART. Bush has yet to prove to me he's more intelligent than the average tomato. This isn't WalMart he's managing here, it's the direction and lives of a fucking country! Being "common" doesn't mean you're qualified to lead a country. Not everyone gets to be an astronaut when they grow up.

p.s.
Don't get me wrong I want to keep the country safe, but the Bush administration has yet to convince me that invading Iraq and dragging the US into a lengthy and expensive military campaign was justified.


10/29/2004 >> ledskof

"Now how exactly would voting for him make him do that?"

What difference has voting 3rd party made so far in the history of this government?
If you want to make a change this election, you have to vote for Kerry. If you want things to continue along at Bush's failure, you can either vote 3rd party, vote for Bush, or not vote at all.

The reason I feel this way is because I have a lot of knowledge about the corruption and abuse of power that bushco has executed. My desire to get them out of power overrules just about everything when it comes to this election.

As far as for making a difference in policy, my opinion is that Kerry is a much more likely candidate to listen to the public interest. Bush is listening to his personal interest and corporate interest. Kerry has a record of fighting public interest damaging corporate interests.

"Oh okay, so does that mean you think the drug war has a clear reason to it?"
No, that is not what I said and not what I meant. I feel that it takes a hell of a lot of arrests to compare to deaths. Especially when the arrests are of people damaging their bodies and HELPING continue the war on drugs anyhow. Every person that buys drugs helps the war on drugs. How do you feel about that one?

"Going back to the issue of war deaths, what about the 13,000 drug-related murders between 1989 and 2001?"

I could care less about drug dealers killing themselves. I'm more concerned with the percentage of those deaths that were of totally innocent people who weren't even involved in the situation that lead to their death.

"Do you think there would be much reason for people to shooot each other over drug deals if we weren't living under prohibition?"

Do you think I'm an idiot? I already said I think the war on drugs is stupid. Should I start repeating myself on that too or what?

"You make it sound like getting arrested and having to go through a trial and likely losing your job or having property seized is no big deal."

No dude, that is not what I said. Being killed and being arrested are not equal. And it's not like all 755,000 of those people went to trial or went to prison or lost their jobs.

"Maybe that's a good argument for making alcohol illegal again, I mean after all people who drink are just being self-destructive, so it should be no big deal to disrupt thier lives for thier own good right?"

How do you make these jumps of logic? I say that your statistic is for people who were arrested and that it doesn't mean that they went to jail long term or were killed. How do go from that to "well why don't we just prohibit alcohol then!"

"okay right back at ya: ...all illegal and illicit drugs caused 123,000 deaths, the vast majority which were heroin and cocaine. [worldwide, in 2000]"

World Wide? So a country with 25 million people losing 100,000 people compares to the entire world losing 123,000 people. I hope you don't make all your decisions based on these kind of balances. While we're at it, the 100,000 Iraq deaths was "excess" meaning that they wouldn't happen if we weren't there. The 123,000 drug deaths you are talking about is from people CONSUMING the drugs. Not from people shooting each other. Using that was basically lying. You are fighting for peoples rights to use drugs legally and quoting statistics of people dying from consuming drugs.

"simply being poisoned. That death toll is only as high as it is because of the drug war."

I guess that is supposed to validate the statistic you used up there. I can't wait till these wonderful drugs get their government RDAs attached to them so all drug users, especially abusers, will be able to fuck themselves up more responsibly.

"Nobody is talking about the drug war, the deadliest and costliest war we've ever lost. Go ahead and vote for John Kerry, but think about these words when your cousin or your friend or your kid gets busted for a joint (a far more likely possibility than thier being sent to Iraq or drafted)."

I really don't have many friends or relatives that use drugs. Maybe 2. Mainly because I think using drugs is restarted. But it's not like I'm a 12 year old here. I'm 27. I've probably had first had knowledge of about 100 drug related arrests and a dozen or more drug related deaths. I've known distributors, dealers, pushers, traffickers, abusers, etc. One of my feelings about people using drugs is "fuck you for helping keep pieces of shit in business and helping to CONTINUE the casualties in the war on drugs". But that's just for the people who are buying from the drug market and not producing it on their own.


10/29/2004 >> ben

you guys know, we've only been this way a short while comparitively... not that i'm trying to change minds, just reminded everyone to think longer term


10/29/2004 >> ledskof

I'm definitely thinking long term. My long term desire is more freedom and less domination by anyone in the country.

The Republican long term goal seems to be to make sure no one but republicans can be in power.


10/29/2004 >> rich

funny, I thought that was the goal of all political parties.


10/29/2004 >> muhgcee

ledskof - What difference has voting third party made in this country? Try an end to slavery and women's right to vote, just to name a couple. Do you really think if the Dems lose again because of Nader they won't start to take up some more progressive ideas?


10/29/2004 >> ledskof

Muhgcee, are you saying that it's more important to just influence the deomcratic party than to elect them?


10/29/2004 >> muhgcee

Absolutely.


10/29/2004 >> ledskof

Ok so I didn't ask that accurately enough.

I meant, do you think it's more important right now to try and influence the democratic party than to try and get the bush administration out of power?

And in effect, do you think it's more important to try and influence the democratic party than to remove bush from power by electing john kerry?

My opinion is that leaving the Bush administration in power is going to do more damage to the country than electing the democratic party.

I also feel that the john kerry's administration will be much more receptive and protective of the public interest than bush's administration.

I didn't mean that it's more important to elect a party than to influence a party. We should definitely influence parties into doing what we want. I think everyone knows this. But right now which party is doing more of what you want? Elect that one to make things better. If you vote 3rd this election, you aren't making things better.

No matter how progressive the ideals are that the demos pick up after this election, if Bush is in power we will still suffer his mismanagement.


10/29/2004 >> ryan

What may be more useful regarding 3rd party voting is to vote them into Congress first and try to fill up some seats with Independents. I think that would go farther by helping raise party awareness and establishing the party as a serious contender. Ramming an Independent into the presidential race isn't the best way to locally promote 3rd party awareness.


10/29/2004 >> muhgcee

ledskof - You could use that logic during every election, in which case your party of choice would have to do almost nothing to get your vote. You must make demands on these people.


10/29/2004 >> Casey

Okay I just wrote this big long comment only to have it bombed becaseu I didn't click the "stay logged in button". Argh.

So real quick.

I made my comparisons of deaths of US soldiers in the Iraq war to deaths of US citizens in the drug war. I made my comparisons of all deaths in the Iraq war to all deaths in the drug war. The drug war is waged worldwide, the Iraq war in Iraq. Laslty, I compared the "life interruptions" of being arrested on drug charges to being deployed in Iraq. The comparisons are fair, you are a doody head.

Next: You really need to figure out for yourself wether yout hink the direct cause of the crimes commited in the war on drugs is with the self-destructive drug users or with the government that makes and enforces prohibition. If you really puzzle through it you'll realize it can't be both.

Since you seem to need a thinking aid, let me give you an example. You said that people who buy drugs are dumb because doing to perpetuates the war on drugs.

If alcohol were recriminalized tomorrow, would you instantly go sober for life to deny the new Al Capones of the world a profit, thereby ending your support for alcohol crimes and obviating the alcohol war?

If not, how can you expect your two friends to give up pot, thereby ending their support for drug crimes and obviating the drug war?

Don't get me wrong, I think boycotts are great and I participate in several. But I think you are smarter than you sound so I know that you understand how boycotts are transitory in the face of sustained demand. Supply and demand will always connect despite any code of laws. There will always be demand for drugs. If you believe those two facts, then prohibition makes about as much sense as criminalizing food or sex.

Think it through.

(Imagine how crime our government would create if they banned food or sex!?)


10/29/2004 >> Casey

Okay I just wrote this big long comment only to have it bombed becaseu I didn't click the "stay logged in button". Argh.

So real quick.

I made my comparisons of deaths of US soldiers in the Iraq war to deaths of US citizens in the drug war. I made my comparisons of all deaths in the Iraq war to all deaths in the drug war. The drug war is waged worldwide, the Iraq war in Iraq. Laslty, I compared the "life interruptions" of being arrested on drug charges to being deployed in Iraq. The comparisons are fair, you are a doody head.

Next: You really need to figure out for yourself wether yout hink the direct cause of the crimes commited in the war on drugs is with the self-destructive drug users or with the government that makes and enforces prohibition. If you really puzzle through it you'll realize it can't be both.

Since you seem to need a thinking aid, let me give you an example. You said that people who buy drugs are dumb because doing to perpetuates the war on drugs.

If alcohol were recriminalized tomorrow, would you instantly go sober for life to deny the new Al Capones of the world a profit, thereby ending your support for alcohol crimes and obviating the alcohol war?

If not, how can you expect your two friends to give up pot, thereby ending their support for drug crimes and obviating the drug war?

Don't get me wrong, I think boycotts are great and I participate in several. But I think you are smarter than you sound so I know that you understand how boycotts are transitory in the face of sustained demand. Supply and demand will always connect despite any code of laws. There will always be demand for drugs. If you believe those two facts, then prohibition makes about as much sense as criminalizing food or sex.

Think it through.

(Imagine how crime our government would create if they banned food or sex!?)


10/29/2004 >> Casey

much, how much crime. Sheesh, learn how to write.


10/29/2004 >> Casey

I guess that is supposed to validate the statistic you used up there. I can't wait till these wonderful drugs get their government RDAs attached to them so all drug users, especially abusers, will be able to fuck themselves up more responsibly.

Me too actaully. Its the same mechanism that keeps people from killing themselves on wood-alcohol contaminated moonshine. Its all about fucking yourself up more responsibly. Fuck you (responsibly).


10/29/2004 >> Casey

While we're at it, the 100,000 Iraq deaths was "excess" meaning that they wouldn't happen if we weren't there. The 123,000 drug deaths you are talking about is from people CONSUMING the drugs. Not from people shooting each other. Using that was basically lying. You are fighting for peoples rights to use drugs legally and quoting statistics of people dying from consuming drugs

Granted, I couldn't find a stat on what the "excess" drug war deaths are (that is, from tainted drugs vs QC drugs). Of course, that stat is just for one year. The drug war has been killing people since the 60's, this Iraq thing will blow over in less than a decade. The drug war has still kiled vastly more people worldwide and in America than the Iraq war, or almost any other relevant war you care to pick.


10/29/2004 >> Casey

Oh but wait, it seems that the 100,000 dead Iraqis figure is about 10x too high.


10/29/2004 >> ledskof

muhgcee

I never said that people should use that logic in every election. I thought that I very clearly stated *this election* over and over. I was trying to very specifically make it understood that if you don't like the way things have been going, you have to get bush out of office. If you want to change the face of politics right now, how is voting 3rd going to help?

casey:
ok arguing over the mechanics of our points is pointless. I don't think that the things you are saying right now is what you said before but really I don't care what you meant or said or whatever whenever. All I care about is what you mean right now.

"Next: You really need to figure out for yourself wether yout hink the direct cause of the crimes commited in the war on drugs is with the self-destructive drug users or with the government that makes and enforces prohibition. If you really puzzle through it you'll realize it can't be both."

To paraphrase myself "If people stopped buying drugs, there wouldn't be a drug war." When I said that earlier I didn't mean it was the solution. Ok? It is not the solution... I realize now that I shouldn't have said anything at all about people buying drugs because it just made the discussion more confusing. But I was thinking about it at the time so I said it. Oh well. I didn't extrapolate on it earlier so I'll do it now: I find people a little irrational who feel ok about giving money to pieces of shit who don't have a problem with killing people who interfere with their business. That is how I feel. Also, as far as drug users go, I feel in a similar (stretched) way as to when people who buy Big Macs, Coke, Microsoft Windows, design IE only webpages, etc. They are supporting something that really isn't helping anyone except the people sitting on top rolling in extremely fat loads of cash in an extreme disruption of the distribution of wealth. But I really don't think it's even their fault that they do these things.

Let me repeat for you since I sidetracked again: I'm not saying that the solution to the war on drugs is for people to stop using drugs. And I've never said it in my life. And I definitely never said that the direct cause of the fact that there are crimes involved with the "war on drugs" is because people use drugs.

Restating that I'm not a blathering idiot, I do understand the incredibly simple fact that if drugs weren't illegal, it wouldn't be a criminal act to use them. So of course I realize the direct cause is the prohibition. I think I probably understood that the day that I learned the word crime. No puzzling through anything necessary.

And also restating myself again in deep faith for repetition, I think drugs should be legal.

"Since you seem to need a thinking aid, let me give you an example. You said that people who buy drugs are dumb because doing to perpetuates the war on drugs."

You're taking this out of context. I didn't say "here is my explanation for what is causing the war on drugs". I was explaining part of the reason why I don't have many drug using acquaintances. And what I said was fuck em. Not that they are dumb. Truthfully though, I don't immediately discriminate against people who use drugs; they gotta be real fuckups for me to do that, but the drugs concerns me.

"If alcohol were recriminalized tomorrow, would you instantly go sober for life to deny the new Al Capones of the world a profit, thereby ending your support for alcohol crimes and obviating the alcohol war?"

First off, I never said anything about obviating the war on drugs. Out of context is one thing, but you're putting words in my mouth there. Or I totally miscommunicated with you.

Second, I already don't abuse alcohol because I think it's unhealthy(note later). But as far as denying people a profit, I don't need it to be criminalized first. But if something WAS criminalized, my first motivation to stop using it is because I don't want to go to jail. Does that really sound so irrational? The moral issue would help me go through with it. so after I stopped using it, then I'd fight to have it decriminalized. I wouldn't risk using it in the mean time. Personally I think using drugs at the risk of going to prison or having your life ruined is extremely irrational and shows that a person already has issues before they decided to use drugs. If someone has their life totally ruined because they got caught with drugs, what have they lost compared to what they were getting?

So would I stop using something for moral reasons? Yeah, I have. Here are a few: I stopped eating fast food for moral reasons. That was before I started really eating healthy. 2. I stopped using Microsoft Windows personally and I'm migrating my company off of it. 3. I am vegan.
Is it really so hard for other people to make purchasing decisions based on morals? I thought it was mostly due to ignorance but maybe I need to weigh more "don't give a fuck" in there when considering people. If so, to me that means there is an issue with society, and that issue probably leads to a greater need of things like drugs.

And do I expect my friends to have such moral convictions? Yes. My close ones do.

"But I think you are smarter than you sound"

Just how fucking stupid do I sound? I don't get that a lot so I'm curious.

And why exactly do you think I'm pro-prohibition? I never said I was. I have never in my entire living memory ever thought that prohibition on any substance that humans have ready access to was logical. Ok? So please for the love of Joe, don't accuse me of thinking that we should prohibit anything. You know, strike that; accuse me all you want. But please know that I am not pro-prohibition.

Unhealthy note: I said abuse because you just about can't avoid consuming alcohol if you eat food whether it be raw produce or whatever. Alcohol can't be totally avoided. But drinking alcohol that was produced for the purpose of getting intoxicated promotes worse health, so I avoid it. Thus I find it an abuse. Which is how I also classify about every drug that generally applies to this conversation. But, mostly anything that you use based on how it makes you feel while your health suffers as a result, I classify as an abuse and as a drug.

Maybe I diverge too much during discussions these days.
And sorry I write so much...


10/29/2004 >> ledskof

Partial rhetorical situation to try and explain why I think voting dem is important this race: Lets say that I love drugs. Drugs are my entire life. I have pictures of crack pipes on the wall right next to the pot buds. I realize with all my intellect that the war on drugs is an absolutely fucking embarrassing situation brought about by ridiculous legislation, ignorance, and a desire to exploit the war in the name of corporatism. There's nothing I want more than to get drugs legalized to save money, lives, and to reinstate a very important personal freedom: the ability to do whatever you want with your body.

So it's time to vote and wtf am I'm going to do! Vote for a liberal of course!
Well it just so happens that in the 2004 election I feel that the incumbent has been doing a great unjust disservice to the country. I find this president the most corrupt president in the history of the country. I think he is taking corporatism to frightening levels. His total disregard for the environment and the separation between church and state disgust me. He has made the international community despise us! His administration lead us into hating the french and into thinking that the UN was incompetent. He lied to us making us think the war in Iraq was logical and needed but then everything he said about it turned out to be a lie and a lot of people died. But then he said it was over but it's not over and people are still dying! Man that guy has to go!
But man, I really gotta support those who want to legalize drugs... So what do I do? Do I give a shit and let this guy continue to fuck up the country and kill people? Do I vote for a liberal that won't possibly be elected... At the rate the incumbent is fear mongering, the next think you know, being a liberal will be considered an act of terrorism. You're already unamerican according to his party if you aren't in agreement with him. He says that if you criticize his actions you're either unamerican, helping terrorists, killing troop morale, or some other shit that means you can't vocalize your opinions... When we ask this guy to answer up to the pitfalls and mismanagement of his administration we get more fear mongering in response.... Man this guy has to go. I have to vote him out. I want someone in that seems more receptive to the public interest. I want someone in that doesn't have an entire administration with investments in the War that just keeping making them more and more money the longer the war takes and the worse it is managed.

How could I possibly make more political change right now than by removing the incumbent?


10/30/2004 >> Casey

Holy long writing!

Okay, so now you are looking for common ground. You were wondering exactly what you said that "misled" me so much about your position so let me get into that. But first I'll reciprocate some of the personal info that you shared. I don't advocate that anyone does drugs, or drinks, or smokes pot, or eats sugary foods, or fatty foods, or anything but vitamins, and soy nut butter on wasa crackers. I don't do drugs myself, but I have in the past, and do get the occasional unmet craving now and then. I drink alcohol (but not as much as Ben) and I drink way too much coffee (black with sugar, damn that sugar!). None of that really makes any difference to my positions on the drug war which were really were formed by the deaths of three people very close to me as a direct consequence of the drug war. One of them was my uncle. I know plenty of people in the military, they all worry about being deployed to Iraq, none of them have been. I don't know anyone who was even so much as wounded in a military war. Aside from that, the statistics support the notion that the drug war is a far greater threat to average Americans than anything else going on today. From both subjective and objective perspectives, you can now probably understand why I see the drug war as a much more imminent threat to my personal well-being than this war in Iraq or terrorism or any of the other shit people are told to worry about by the de-regulated, three companies who run the media and make better profits off of the advertising revenues earned during carefully engineered close elections. You'll have to excuse me if I just don't buy into your mass-media position of this being "the most important election" evarrrrr. No matter who gets elected, the situation in Iraq is going to have to get sorted out, as is the deficit and a couple of other things I could care less about.

Getting back to exactly what you said that led me to think you are some kind of "hate the victim" prohibitionist. Its pretty much all the "hate the victim" arguments you presented. I don't really need to recap becasue you've already recognized your error

"If people stopped buying drugs, there wouldn't be a drug war." When I said that earlier I didn't mean it was the solution. Ok? It is not the solution... I realize now that I shouldn't have said anything at all about people buying drugs because it just made the discussion more confusing.

And lastly, its the statements like these that made me realize you might not be a hopeless stump.

Is it really so hard for other people to make purchasing decisions based on morals? I thought it was mostly due to ignorance but maybe I need to weigh more "don't give a fuck" in there when considering people. If so, to me that means there is an issue with society, and that issue probably leads to a greater need of things like drugs.

I probably will never make you (or anyone) understand why they might feel that they need to try drugs in the first place. It is this one simple point that you haven't grasped that then leads you to all your other bad conclusions. Maybe you do get it? I don't know, you keep confusing me because you say things that seem to go back and forth on it. If you don't get it, you are no different than the 20th century prohibitionists really.

If you honestly feel that there is no reason for people to ever want to try drugs, it is very logical to assume that the root of all crime of the drug war lie with the users. That's pretty simple. Again though, the premise is false.

A second basic problem I have with your perspective is that you never consider the fact that one man's moral taboo is another man's holy mana. I personallly recognize a destructive effect to drugs and alcohol and try to avoid or moderate myself in kind. But I harbor no resentment to those who do not, perhaps even criminally (read: I don't hate-the-victim). I'm sure that no matter how friggin vegan or sXe or corporate-boycotting you want to be, you've got some little affinity for something that someone, somewhere finds morally abhorrent (perhaps only in Afganistan). You can throw your moral arguments out the window simply because not everyone shares your morals, so suck it up.

if something WAS criminalized, my first motivation to stop using it is because I don't want to go to jail. Does that really sound so irrational?

It would be if the criminalization itself was completely irrational. There are more important things to consider in this world than the code of laws. Law is a fragile thing that is only as effective as people's respect for it. Law is weakend and abused when it is used as a tool of discrimination against a sexuality, a habit, a racial group, or some other aspect of personal identity. The 20th century prohibitionists had a moral objection to alcohol, however catholics identified it as the very blood of thier god. I'm not trying to say that every drug user has to have a religious reason to use drugs (although many do), but in many cases (certainly mine), the moral or legal issues of drug use are a way, way, way, distant second to issues of personal identity.

I don't regret experimenting with drugs at all and I recognize it was a risk I needed to take. I am a better person, and my life is better for having been through that. This would not be the case had I been caught however. I resent that I had to live in fear of my freedom at that time. You think living in America during the Bush administration is scary? Try finding out that your neighbor killed himself to avoid a 20 year mandatory minimum for simple possession. Ya, I'm voting Libertarian thank you.


10/30/2004 >> Samantha

You weren't kidding!


10/30/2004 >> ledskof

Man you are nuts.

This was in my second post:

"I think the war on drugs is retarded. I think it's a total waste of money and I think drugs should be legal."

I never said I supported the prohibition. And I never said that the reason we have a war on drugs is because people use drugs. I didn't go back and forth. I was stating another viewpoint and I've already explained that's what I was doing. I didn't say anything about people CHOOSING to use drugs being a PART of the problem until the end of my THIRD post. You make it sound like you've totally summed me up, intellectually, politically, and philosophically, based on that one thing I said.

W T F are you smoking?
oh wait... that was the point wasn't it.

You think that using something that will get you put in prison is irrational if it was irrational to criminalize it? It's hard to fight for causes while you're behind bars. My opinion is that breaking the law isn't how you change the law. You could even argue that if you really care about something and feel like you can make a difference about it, you'll be careful not to have yourself removed from the battlefield. Oh yeah though, that's one of those totally fucking irrational moral approaches to living your life again. Excuse my totally irrational and asinine desire for purity.

Here's the 3rd grade version: I think drugs should be legal and that prohibition is ridiculous. I also think that drug users are part of the problem.


:I resent that I had to live in fear of my freedom at that time. You think living in America during the Bush administration is scary? Try finding out that your neighbor killed himself to avoid a 20 year mandatory minimum for simple possession. Ya, I'm voting Libertarian thank you."

You think you have more chance of changing the drug laws while bush is in office? Bush will probably change it so that only "terrorists" have drugs. He's always looking for creative ways to extend this wonderful war on terrorism.


10/30/2004 >> Casey

Fuck you, you little stub-fucker. Even trying your hardest you can't be half the asshole I am.

You think that using something that will get you put in prison is irrational if it was irrational to criminalize it? It's hard to fight for causes while you're behind bars.

Tell that to Rosa Parks you fucking moron. Civil disobedience is exactly how unjust, irrational laws get changed.

I have to go out and enjoy a few halloween parties now. I'll come back to you on Monday you smelly vegan hippy.


10/30/2004 >> ben

yes, because this is how we change peoples' minds... snicker


10/30/2004 >> ledskof

Ben:
Were you responding to me? not sure...

Casey:

What the fuck is wrong with you man?

What have I done to deserve this?

" Fuck you, you little stub-fucker. Even trying your hardest you can't be half the asshole I am. "

I have no clue why you said this. None. What does being called a stub-fucker entail? And where am I trying my hardest to be an asshole?

Can you communicate without being a prick? I feel like I'm being trolled or something. But at least you didn't accuse me of being for prohibition this time though. That's an improvement.

"Civil disobedience is exactly how unjust, irrational laws get changed. "

I realize that movements are ignited by acts of "civil disobedience". Am I still a moron?

But it's not the only way to change unjust laws. If you think it's the most effective, great for you. But how are we going to legalize drugs by using them? Do you think that they will be legalized if enough people start using them? Or do we need to revolt or something. If you are going to cal me a moron and be such an ass, how about telling me the solution? Oh wait, it's voting libertarian right? How's that for civil disobedience! YOU GIVE EM HELL AT THE POLLS MAN! LOL!

Have fun at your super duper halloween parties, since you're so much better than me. I'll be here waiting on you and doing nothing else till Monday at the smelly vegan hippie club.


10/31/2004 >> muhgcee

I think Casey's posts should be limited to about 10 words.


10/31/2004 >> Casey

muhgcee, if you don't like what you are reading, change the damn channel. I bet you're one of those annnoying people who slows way down to stare at traffic accidents too.

Okay back to our regularly scheduled idoicy (I just couldn't wait till Monday)...

W T F are you smoking?

Perhaps the same thing your candidate has.

If you are going to go around suggesting my positions on drug policy reform are poor judgement because I've used drugs in the past, you better check yourself. If anything you're the one who's judgement should be questioned here. If you've never even done drugs (or drank for that matter) you barely deserve an opinion and frankly my patience with your "support" for ending the drug war is wearing pretty fucking thin. Its great that you are for decriminlaization but frankly with the attitude you have towards drug users, the movement doesn't need your help, thanks.

people CHOOSING to use drugs being a PART of the problem

I'm going to harp on this point until you recognize just how wrongheaded it really is. Saying that people choosing to do drugs is part of the drug problem is like saying that gravity is part of the problem with falling. While true, it has nothing to do with how the problem gets fixed. A person may choose to try drugs or not, but there will forever be people who choose drugs. Its a built-in demand, an unchanging constant, the third law or economics or something. The particular drugs in demand may ebb and sway with fashion and law, but that's about as much wiggle as you get.

So why don't you just shut the fuck up with this rhetoric "Is it really so hard for other people to make purchasing decisions based on morals?" In the context of this discussion, that one line incensed me to distraction. Good thing I hung out and lived my life last night to gain some perspective. If you really want to help out in ending the drug war, why don't you just focus your analysis on the laws that support it, instead of judging users with these falsely superior statements that imply users are stupid for breaking the law and that the blame for thier plight lies in thier own lack of temperance. Now you know where the hostility comes from. Go fuck yourself you high-and-mighty, straight edge jack ass.

Drug policy won't be any better under Bush than it would under Kerry. However I do think Kerry would be more likely to seek my vote, if he understood he wasn't getting it on this issue. So why on earth would I give him my vote now? Why is this so hard for you to understand? And ya, I do a number of other things to try and see this change through besides votign libertarian (or green in some offices). It would be pointless to itemize or justify them to you though so I won't.

Time to rake leaves to make a scarecrow!


10/31/2004 >> muhgcee

Yeah, you're probably right, as blind assumptions usually are. I find it wrong to argue with someone and use pointless insults while doing so. And, it is a little hard to not read some of the things you say when I am trying to debate with other people in the same thread.


10/31/2004 >> ledskof

"If you are going to go around suggesting my positions on drug policy reform are poor judgement because I've used drugs in the past"

I never said and never meant that. If you think I did, reread what I said. And if you still think I mean that after you reread it, or didn't feel like rereading, then forget it and read this now: I do not think that using drugs in the past means you have too poor judgement to want to legalize drugs. Or whatever in the fuck you meant.
What I really said was: "I find people a little irrational who feel ok about giving money to pieces of shit who don't have a problem with killing people who interfere with their business."
mmk?

I didn't say I haven't used drugs or drank. I said that I don't do it now. The number 1 reason I don't do either is because when I put something in or on my body the #1 requirement is that it has a positive effect on my health unless I absolutely can't avoid otherwise.

I'm going to harp back at to you until you realize this about me: I don't think that abstinence is the solution to the drug war. mmk? But it doesn't mean that buying illegal drugs has nothing to do with the problem. Let me split that apart a little so maybe you can consider me human again. I tried to say this a little earlier and I realized after rereading some stuff that I didn't state this clearly enough:
If you buy drugs from someone down the line of a cartel, you are part of the problem. Honestly, I'm inclined to call this person a piece of shit.
If you produce your own drugs from your own resources (like growing pot plants) you are not really part of the real problem. I have no problem with this person at all. But I also think this person is making a somewhat irrational decision to use drugs when they can get you put in jail. That is my opinion, and if you think that telling me to stop judging people and having opinions is rational then you are a fucking retard. On the other hand if you want to try and sway my opinion and influence me to believe that risking going to jail is worth it then please be my guest. I am very very open minded.

Now I can't wait to hear you say I'm closed minded because I eat healthy.

That gravity analogy sucked. Using drugs is a choice. Please don't repeat to me that there will always be drugs. I never said there wouldn't. You still seem to think I'm pro-prohibition and that my solution to the drug war is to stop using drugs. It's not ok? I know it isn't the solution. I'm getting really fucking tired of repeating that.

I never suggested that I'm just analyzing drug users to try and fix the problem. That is some bullshit that you chose to asume about me for whatever reason. If you want to take the cosmetics of this argument and say that shit about me then I could say that you are only fighting drug laws by using drugs. And to that type of person I'm inclined to say, get off your ass, write your congressman, organize protests and groups, get involved, talk to people, start a call center, write a book, papers, something. But then I wouldn't be surprised if you came back and tried to justify to me that using drugs helps fight drug laws. Maybe it does, but I don't see it.

The shit about not needing my help: It sounds like you are running the opposition here. Well fuck you, I'm going to keep fighting drug laws without your god damn approval. And if you want to get really dumbass about it, even Rosa Parks had whites on her side. That's a bad analogy too though because I personally don't see the issue with the war on drugs as just about drugs. To me it's about having total personal freedom and absolute control of your own body without anyone else having any say in it. Thus, that transcends me fighting for other peoples rights to do drugs and focuses on other peoples most important freedom.

As far as being a part of the problem: It is my opinion that supporting people who kill people as a business practice is morally bad. Does it not affect you at all if you give money to someone who has no problem with murdering people over the very product you are purchasing? More murder and other crime help fuel the ignorant public's desire for the drug war. And to take it higher up the scale with specific drugs, as long as people continue to give money to multibillion dollar drug cartles, the longer those cartels will have lobbying in this country, the longer politicians will get kickbacks and bribes, and the longer drugs will be illegal and our rights will be violated. Whether or not you feel that is part of the problem at all, you have to realize somewhere in your super brain that this factors in at least a tinsy bit. And I thought I tried to make it clear that my saying "drug users are part of the problem" was insignificant.

So what must one acheive to earn your approval to fight the "drug laws"? Stop judging people, stop having opinions, start using drugs, start drinking too maybe, and what else?

By the way, I did my first drug law protest about 14 years ago.


11/1/2004 >> ryan

I think this thread wins the TL;DR award.


11/1/2004 >> Casey

hmmm. okay I feel like at least we're back on track.

Let me start here:
Does it not affect you at all if you give money to someone who has no problem with murdering people over the very product you are purchasing?

Far less so than paying taxes to support the Iraq war. But don't get me wrong, I feel bad that cops, dealers and users are dying, but again, I don't blame users or dealers or cops for the deaths of the war they are fighting, I blame the people who are giving the orders to fight this war. I blame the elected officials who think that market economics is something that can be battled with police and law (communists used to think this too). I feel as you do that people have the right to do whatever it is that they want with thier bodies. In the case of drugs, an industry must exist to support that right and so if people have to buy drugs from murders, I blame the laws that force people to murder as a way of preserving thier liberty or as a business tactic, and see no guilt on economically driven side of this war.

And to take it higher up the scale with specific drugs, as long as people continue to give money to multibillion dollar drug cartles, the longer those cartels will have lobbying in this country, the longer politicians will get kickbacks and bribes, and the longer drugs will be illegal and our rights will be violated.

How can you not see how I interpet this as a suggestion that people stop using drugs as an answer to drug war problems? Go ahead and clarify it for me a little more if you will, but it sure sounds to me like you are okay with supply of some drugs (homegrown pot) but feel that people should just stop using drugs they have to buy (cocaine, synthetics, etc.). You also seem to think that people who grow thier own and don't sell to anyone aren't killing people to keep thier secrets. That's fucking nonsense, you live in fantasy land. The minority of murders of the drug war are business tactics (knocking off competitors). The vast majority of murders in the drug war are people killing snitches so they can stay out of jail. Don't watch so many movies. Remove the fear of jail, and the murders will drop close to zero. Additionally drop the profit motive, and murders drop to zero. Dude, if you are for prohibition repeal be consistent about it. I simply don't understand how you can support decriminalization but not support drug commerce. Do you not agree that use of an item is intrinsically linked to commerce of that item? If you feel that people should be free to do whatever the wish with thier bodies, you should also feel that people should be free to buy whatever they want for use in thier bodies. You just can't have one without the other. Less words this time: it is illogical to be for drug decriminalization but against drug commerce.

On a different tack, lets say everyone stopped buying drugs and only used what the made themselves. What exactly do you think would happen next? Do you honestly think the government would suddenly shout, "hey, we won the drug war! everybody pack your bags and go find new jobs, and by the way, we don't need to have drugs illlegal anymore, so we're decriminalizing them, yay!". That's ridiculous, they'd send out a ton of propaganda about how they've reduced drugs in America but there was still much to be done, and then they'd start going after new targets, kids drinking robitussin or huffing paint thinner perhaps.

Its stupid to even consider this scenario because again, shaming users who buy drugs from dealers (who may or may not also be murderers, no way to tell really) is about as useful a line of discussion as arguing that demand for drugs can be eliminated (for some reason, those two points don't seem to be related in your mind). It also implies that you see a moral problem with people who buy drugs instead of making thier own. This belies a "blame the victim" mentality so much to me that its starting to make my blood boil again. The fact that you keep saying you don't "blame the victim", in the same breath as comments like that, tweaks me that much more. Its like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. I'll refrain from hurling epithets your way this time in the vain hope that you'll finally get it.


11/1/2004 >> ben

tl;dr?


11/1/2004 >> ledskof

"How can you not see how I interpet this as a suggestion that people stop using drugs as an answer to drug war problems?"

I do see that you interpret it that way. I was trying to justify that it is "part of the problem". Not the problem, and not part of the solution.

"The vast majority of murders in the drug war are people killing snitches so they can stay out of jail."

I don't know what the statistical spread is but I was including what you just said in the "business practice" category.

"I simply don't understand how you can support decriminalization but not support drug commerce."

I'm not anti drug commerce. I'm anti evil drug empire. And I realize that the way to abolish the evil drug empire is to legalize drugs. So there's no reason to say that I'm anti drug commerce. I don't have much of a problem with drugs being on the shelf at 7eleven. I think alcohol is just as bad and I'm nearly as much anti-alcohol, anti-sugar, and anti-fastfood as I am anti-drugs. But I'm against using those chemicals and I'm against supporting them (ie I don't buy and encourage others not to buy). I'm not against their existence or commerce or anyones right to consume them. That doesn't mean that I won't always try and influence people not to use things that I think have a negative impact on their health though.

"Less words this time: it is illogical to be for drug decriminalization but against drug commerce."

I agree.

"On a different tack, lets say everyone stopped buying drugs and only used what the made themselves."

I didn't say that is how I think things should be. I said I don't have a problem with people who produce their own drugs instead of buying from the evil empire. If you buy from a non-evil empire, then I feel about the same as producing on your own. If that non-evil empire decides to grow up into a murdering ruthless empire, then I think it's immoral to continue to fund them. There is some philosophy there to say that you helped them grow into an evil empire. All business can get evil and I do not suggest that people stop buying anything at all just to avoid any possible business going bad. If it looks like someone is getting evil though, stop supporting them. Is that really illogical? Whether they manage to maneuver their company into a monopoly that can hurt the public interest and innovation with their control, or they decided to kill people. Stop supporting them. If you don't mind supporting monopolies and murders then that's your opinion. This is mine.

"Its stupid to even consider this scenario because again, shaming users who buy drugs from dealers (who may or may not also be murderers, no way to tell really) is about as useful a line of discussion as arguing that demand for drugs can be eliminated (

"for some reason, those two points don't seem to be related in your mind"

You really confused me on that one. I realize that people don't exactly get resumes and chain of supply reports from their dealers. That's not really my problem though. And it doesn't affect whether or not buying drugs is part of the problem. What I have been trying to argue is that it is part of the problem, no matter how infinitely small. And the reason I've been arguing it the whole fucking time is because I said it once and you jumped all over it, even though it had very very little to do with this discussion I feel.

"It also implies that you see a moral problem with people who buy drugs instead of making thier own. This belies a "blame the victim" mentality so much to me that its starting to make my blood boil again."

Sorry, confused again. Blame the victim is a big issue to me. I'm not sure how you are applying this to this discussion. Are you saying drug users are victims in the war on drugs? I am also a victim in the war on drugs yet I don't use drugs. Do you think that means I am placing all the blame on drug users? I'm not. No really, I'm not placing all the blame on drug users. Am I placing *any* blame on drug users? Not really. I say not really because I do think it's part of the issue even if infinitely small. Do I think it's an important part of the issue to even discuss. Not in this discussion. I think it's suitable in a more philosophical discussion though. When I said something that lead to this initially I didn't mean for it to be the dominating aspect here. I've been on defense ever sense. On the other hand, you seem to think my opinion on this is a very important part of my efforts against the drug laws. It's not.

"I'll refrain from hurling epithets your way this time in the vain hope that you'll finally get it."

trying my best.

Look man, I'm always willing to change. I realize that people are passionate about their opinions and whether or not something is rational or even logical is often debatable when it comes to opinions. I realize now that it was probably irrational trying to push kerry over bush or 3rd party for this election in this discussion. The reason I did so is because I personally feel desperate to get bush out of office. So I end up saying and doing things that other people find offensive and preaching.

I also realize that people have a huge store of knowledge in their heads that lead to them to conclusions. My knowledge store leads me to being desperate to elect someone other than bush with a cleaner record, and I still feel that voting 3rd party this election will not do anything for the country.

I admit that I have major ignorance when it comes to politics and everything connected. If someone can explain to me how I will help this country by voting 3rd this time, I'll go do it tomorrow. On the other hand, all the people I know that vote 3rd every election, are voting for Kerry this election.


11/1/2004 >> muhgcee

I tried to explain to you the benefits of voting third party, or more specifically voting for someone you really agree with most, in the above posts. By voting for who you agree with most, you are sending a demand to the other candidates. For me, by voting Nader, I am telling Kerry that his positions are not enough to get my vote. He must do all or most of these things to get my vote: Support gay marriage. Don't support the Patriot Act. Promote peace. Don't support the drug war. Support a higher minimum wage. Support health care for all. Those are a huge amount of very important issues that I don't agree with Kerry with - your list may be different, and shorter or longer. Short enough of a list, and maybe the candidate does deserve your vote. But, being better than Bush is not nearly enough to get this country somewhere.

I brought this up the other night with some friends - if Nader gets enough votes this time to sway the election to Bush again, do you really think the Democrats won't try to get some of Nader's voters in a more respectible way, like changing their issues in order to gain more voters? They would be stupid if they didn't, and they would lose again and again. Liberals won't stand for the Democrats continuing move to the right for much longer.


11/1/2004 >> ledskof

I definitely think that the dems will try to get more liberal votes next time if they lose. I'm just frightened of having bush in for 4 more years.


11/1/2004 >> muhgcee

While I disagree with it, I fully understand and respect your reasoning.


11/1/2004 >> muhgcee

By the way, ledskof, what state do you live in?


11/1/2004 >> ledskof

Georgia.
139 RADFORD CIR SW
MARIETTA, GA 30060


11/1/2004 >> muhgcee

According to votepair.org, Georgia is a "safe state". This means that Bush is going to win that state handily, so voting Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, or whomever else, will not hurt anything. Bush is going to win that state, so the best thing you can do is vote for whom you believe in.


11/1/2004 >> muhgcee

Here is a map.


11/1/2004 >> ben

that's a kick ass site, stu, thanks for the link!

actually, i kind of wish you'd shown us that before, i would have link-o-maticed it in time to get people here to maybe use it...


11/1/2004 >> muhgcee

I guess I had just assumed everyone had heard of it already, but I guess not. I, of course, advocate voting for whomever you agree with most no matter where you live, but if you are of ledskof's philosophy, that can be a great tool.


11/1/2004 >> Casey

ledskof,

I suppose if you are simply saying that you discourage unhealthy habits for individuals (like drugs) while support thier right to be unhealthy to buy and use drugs, we have no disagreement.

If you buy from a non-evil empire, then I feel about the same as producing on your own. If that non-evil empire decides to grow up into a murdering ruthless empire, then I think it's immoral to continue to fund them. There is some philosophy there to say that you helped them grow into an evil empire. All business can get evil and I do not suggest that people stop buying anything at all just to avoid any possible business going bad. If it looks like someone is getting evil though, stop supporting them. Is that really illogical? Whether they manage to maneuver their company into a monopoly that can hurt the public interest and innovation with their control, or they decided to kill people. Stop supporting them. If you don't mind supporting monopolies and murders then that's your opinion.

You pay taxes right? Any murderers funded by your tax dollars do you suppose? How about gasoline? Any Do you buy any of that stuff?

Anyway, this is fine and dandy when you are talking about a non-commodity business that has a legal brand that can be identified, but because of prohibition we have no way of linking a drug product with its manufacturer, and consequently holding a specific manufacturer responsible for thier product. If you can tell me who sells the Marin County pacifist hippy weed I'll tell all my friends to only buy that, and avoid that Mexican cartel stuff.

Of course you can't, so what then is the answer? It really leaves only two practical alternatives. Do we tell everyone they should not do drugs because they might be supporting a murderer? (you said no: "I do not suggest that people stop buying anything at all just to avoid any possible business going bad.") Or do we just recognize that drugs are a commodity (like gasoline and government) that doesn't have any real alternatives, and instead focus on changing the business environment of that commodity? So, instead of gas - domestic transportation fuel, instead of republicrats - 3rd party voting, and instead of the drug war - decriminalization. I mean ya sure, you individually could refuse to pay American taxes, or drive a solar car, or boycott all drugs, but is that realistic to expect from a population? I don't think so.

I suppose your, "if you buy drugs, you might support murderers (terrorists)" angle can be used to support the decriminalization argument. Despite the truth of it though, it isn't commonly used that way and I think its main impact is a negative one. Its usually used as a demand-reduction cheap shot that primarily serves to demonize drug users and I think that is the way most people who hear it are going to respond. So this is where I'm coming from when I say you aren't helping the cause that way.


11/1/2004 >> ledskof

I don't go around demonizing drug users :)
I do kind of go around demonizing people who eat fast food though. I get bitched at about that every now and then.

But to rest your fears, I've never discussed this idea with anyone in this context. When we are talking about the drug war I don't even think about some of what I've had to say here. But in person people generally aren't so quick to question your credibility and background on an issue, possibly because there is more time to discuss straight data instead of worrying about someone's character purity or motives. I was trying to explain why I don't have many friends who use drugs and part of the reason was that I find moral issues with it. I have had a lot of friends who did drugs in the past though. I've also had friends who functioned at almost every level of the business. Anyhow, later I tried to explain that I really don't discriminate that strongly based on people using drugs and it honestly hasn't factored in much on my friendship developments in the past. What has happened though is that most of the people I've known who are into drugs just weren't into doing the same things that I am. My best friend growing up got really heavy into pot and I didn't. That was where we started splitting off from being best friends at about 13 years old. It wasn't because I had animosity towards him or him towards me. He just wanted to do things that I wasn't into like hanging out specifically with people who shared his desire to smoke up. I still joined him in legalize drug actions though.

I do have *some* animosity against drug usage though. It's not something I vocalize too often, and I don't think it factors into how I feel about personal freedom or drug legality.

I agree with you that it doesn't help the cause. And I want you to know that it hasn't been a factor or tool for me in the cause.


11/1/2004 >> ledskof

man, talking about myself this much makes me sick.


11/1/2004 >> ledskof

muhcgee:
It's actually even more dismal (for me) on congress.org. They show a 26.8 point lead for bush in georgia.

Maybe I'm a total idiot but I keep thinking I'll come back later and regret that I didn't vote the way I think I should.

This is where I pledged my vote:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/pyv/

Things look a little different there than on votepair.org.


11/1/2004 >> Samantha

You guys write really long posts!


11/2/2004 >> ryan

tl;dr = Too long, didn't read.


11/2/2004 >> Samantha

oh! I love that code!! Did you think of that?


11/2/2004 >> ryan

tl;dr has been around for a while, so no I can't take credit for its creation.


2/22/2022 >> olly2022

Good post....thanks for sharing.. very useful for me i will bookmark this for my future needs. Thanks.<a href="null" target=_blank">null</a><a href="https://pnews.org/how-to-cancel-audible-membership/" target=_blank">https://pnews.org/how-to-cancel-audible-membership/</a>




You must be logged in to comment.

comments

links

www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from Kheiligh. Make your own badge here.

flickr