From: blackhole@verizon.net
"JohnR" wrote in message
news:4a79655f$0$18324$166caa5@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> I haven't seen you post here for some time Nate, I always found your
> arguments perfectly well mannered and reasonable but also very blinkered.
> Drug prohibition seems to me like banning balaclavas in order to stamp out
> bank robbery. The policy doesn't have the slightest hope of ever
> succeeding, which leads me and others to seriously question whether it's
> purpose is to protect even one person from harm or about the actual drugs
> themselves.
That would require people who aspire to become Narcs, DEA agents,
corrections officers, etc. to gain said aspirations out of concern for the
people they're "helping". That's one hell of a hard sell in these woods.
(not that Brother Nate doesn't already know it by now)
Just call me crackpot,
DragonAss
The rest of what you posted hits the nail pretty squarely on the head too.
< left below for posterity >
> After the decades of compounded failure, continuous escalation, truly
> staggering costs and relentless encroachment on freedoms it seems obvious
> that the war on some drugs (and it's bastard offspring the war on some
> terror) isn't really about offering individual protection but serves a
> much more valuable (and sinister imo) purpose for those in power, to grow
> government and it's paramilitary control over citizens. Whether that makes
> me a crackpot or not I don't know but the evidence is there to be seen.
>
> With revalations the CIA are actively involved in the illicit drug trade
> and substantial eye witness evidence they were implicated heavily in the
> 80's US crack epidemic it all gets very disturbing when the surface is
> scratched away. I can't honestly see how any rational person could argue
> prohibition is good for anyone not already on the payroll.
>
> After the nonsensical idiocy is displaced by a rational drug policy
> vulnerable people will continue to be vulnerable. Why that has any bearing
> whatsoever on the discussion that prohibition is a complete and utter
> failure that needs to be scrapped is beyond me. It would at the very least
> be easier for the paramilitary drug thugs to then target that vastly
> reduced illicit trade and go after the suppliers those vulnerable people
> encounter.
>
> The bottom line is that troubled kids are troubled kids and the legal
> status of some plants isn't going to address that fact one way or the
> other. There is no evidence whatsoever that the removal of nonsensical
> criminal sanction will cause a drug induced apocalyptic end to society as
> we know it. That is little more than a demonic fantasy held by supporters
> of the continued victimisation and persecution of those who do little more
> than choose the wrong intoxicant.
>
> The irony in arguing about lack of protection for vulnerable members of
> society is that prohibition and drug war make illicit drug users, those
> involved and those around them far more vulnerable than they would
> otherwise be.
>
> The evidence from countries moving down the liberal attitude to drug usage
> road is almost entirely positive. Some mistakes have been made for sure
> but always within the context of a global US sponsored straight jacket on
> policy decisions. Opponents of liberalisation have to do some pretty
> impressive gymnastics to see anything negative. Well, that or simply tell
> bare faced lies of course as drug warriors are known to do.
>
> Drug war has it's roots firmly planted in race hate and greed. It was, is
> and always will be about nothing more than vindictive persecution of
> minority groups and the preservation of "legitimate" trade cartels.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
