3 ms·

Jacques, this comment interests me: There is no drug war, that's just a figment of some peoples imaginations. I've been on the edge (on various sides) of what

by ErrantX 17y ago

Jacques, this comment interests me: There is no drug war, that's just a figment of some peoples imaginations. I've been on the edge (on various sides) of what looks to me like a very long, slow and destructive engagement between the populace / drugs gangs / the authorities. So Im wondering how your comment is pitched? Im certain there are quite a few people in SA countries who would argue there certainly is a drugs war :) On the other hand I suspect your talking in a domestic sense (in which case I mostly agree). Just interested where your coming from with that? The energy solutions will immediately be offset by an increase in consumption by the developing world, I figure the energy-almost-crisis will be here for at least another 50 years. The only thing that will solve the energy crisis is cheap, pollution free fusion power. That will take a while. This I think you nailed spot on. But I think there is definitely a market here for someone to really work on sustainable energy - and to make it less of a niche / hippy thing. Perhaps a startup opportunity or 2. The am would be simple: to stretch that "50 years" out as long as possible till a proper solution (Fusion, I guess) is stabilized.

jacquesm 17y ago
Let me try to clarify the drug war comment without making it book length. To call something a war means that there is an enemy of sort. The war on Cancer, the war on Terror, the war on Drugs etc. War evokes a whole pile of emotions in people and that's the reason why that word gets a lot of use (or better put abuse) outside of its proper usage. War is an act of violence between two nation states when diplomacy fails to resolve a conflict. A last resort, after which a state of normality (or sanity) normally resumes, this we call 'peace'. Since you can't really make peace with Cancer, drugs or terror you can't be at war with them either. Who will negotiate the surrender, what will the terms be. But war is such a convenient short word that politicians simply can't resist the temptation to use it, after all, if there is a war we want to be on the good side (and never mind looking too closely at what the good side is, almost by definition we are a on the good side). So to call the war on drugs a war is disingenuous (sp?), it puts people mentally on the wrong foot and then uses their emotional response as a way to suppress their critical thinking faculties. If they stood still long enough they'd realize that cancer cells have never declared war on us, and we can declare war back all we want it's not going to make a difference. Cancer doesn't care about us, it's just a malfunctioning of a mechanism that is built in to our cells. Normally it serves us well, when it malfunctions it turns against us. So we'd like it to go away, but because it is systemic and because the longer you live the more frequently you play the lottery of cell division the bigger the chance you'll lose. So to win the war on cancer you'd have to turn back the clock on our longer life spans. The war on terror is similar. You can't create a world in which there are so many black vs white, with-us-or-against-us polarizing elements without having some percentage of the world population turn to radical methods of making their displeasure known. And given a world wide media that loves nothing better than carnage on a large scale these people have a great platform. The gorier the merrier as far as they're concerned, anything to drive up those ratings. Then, the subject at hand, the war on drugs. There are people that would rather close their eyes to the reality around them, for a short while feel better than their lot in life gives them reason to, a way to escape reality. Some do this by playing games online, a world in which they can be more than in reality. Some do it by exiting this world altogether. Some get up and start changing the world around them until it suits them better and get a kick out of that. And some choose drugs. Sometimes 'softer' drugs like cannabis or piles of chocolate, sometimes harder drugs like alcohol, heroin, cocaine or whatever floats their boat. It's systemic as well. In a world where there are so many people driven to the fringe of society, where the only way to make a killing is to do something illegal because you don't stand much chance of doing it the honest way plenty of people will take the chance to become a cog in the machine that supplies the escapists with their method of escape. That's a societal problem, not something you're going to solve with a war. It will take time, tolerance, education and real involvement on all levels of society. You're not going to win that by either bombing some fields, raiding some labs or by killing or busting a few people. The only thing that will do is drive the price up because the drugs will become more scarce.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  That's pretty clarified :) thanks (I wont reply, it will turn into an essay :D) EDIT: though I will point out your definition of war is somewhat a false argument. Because your referring very specifically to it as a "state of being" - either we are at war or at peace. Which isn't always the case. In a very real sense governments are in conflict with "other parties" over the legality of drugs, their importation and production. So in an absolutely literal sense there is a drugs war :) The simile with Cancer is also incorrect as well as Cancer is a non-concious entity compared to, say, a band of drugs traffickers. Though I do whole heartedly agree it is a much overused word. [I suspect the original poster is referring, to give him the benefit of the doubt, to the actual "battles" with the drug cartels. That is something no amount of legalisation will stop, at least initially; so his is, it is true, a naive view]
- gaius 17y ago
  Yes but no-one really thinks the "war on drugs" is a war on chemical compounds. It's shorthand for "war against drug cartels" which are entities as well organized and armed as many nation-states. Since the "other side" in the war on drugs is actually people, then all the use of language is coherent. A druglord absolutely could negotiate the terms of a surrender if it were in his (organization's) interest to do so, just as a regular Head of State could. Now let me be clear that I am not taking a "drugs are bad" position here. I am pointing out that the "war on drugs" is actually fought by men in uniform (even if that's just gang colours) shooting at each other with automatic weapons over who controls what bit of territory. If that's not a war then what is? Similarly "war on terror". No-one thinks it's a war against an abstract emotion...
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    How convenient not? Everybody uses their own emotional background to give it the meaning that suits them best. That's the whole point of using slogans, we all identify with them in our own personal way.

by ErrantX 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

Let me try to clarify the drug war comment without making it book length. To call something a war means that there is an enemy of sort. The war on Cancer, the war on Terror, the war on Drugs etc. War evokes a whole pile of emotions in people and that's the reason why that word gets a lot of use (or better put abuse) outside of its proper usage. War is an act of violence between two nation states when diplomacy fails to resolve a conflict. A last resort, after which a state of normality (or sanity) normally resumes, this we call 'peace'. Since you can't really make peace with Cancer, drugs or terror you can't be at war with them either. Who will negotiate the surrender, what will the terms be. But war is such a convenient short word that politicians simply can't resist the temptation to use it, after all, if there is a war we want to be on the good side (and never mind looking too closely at what the good side is, almost by definition we are a on the good side). So to call the war on drugs a war is disingenuous (sp?), it puts people mentally on the wrong foot and then uses their emotional response as a way to suppress their critical thinking faculties. If they stood still long enough they'd realize that cancer cells have never declared war on us, and we can declare war back all we want it's not going to make a difference. Cancer doesn't care about us, it's just a malfunctioning of a mechanism that is built in to our cells. Normally it serves us well, when it malfunctions it turns against us. So we'd like it to go away, but because it is systemic and because the longer you live the more frequently you play the lottery of cell division the bigger the chance you'll lose. So to win the war on cancer you'd have to turn back the clock on our longer life spans. The war on terror is similar. You can't create a world in which there are so many black vs white, with-us-or-against-us polarizing elements without having some percentage of the world population turn to radical methods of making their displeasure known. And given a world wide media that loves nothing better than carnage on a large scale these people have a great platform. The gorier the merrier as far as they're concerned, anything to drive up those ratings. Then, the subject at hand, the war on drugs. There are people that would rather close their eyes to the reality around them, for a short while feel better than their lot in life gives them reason to, a way to escape reality. Some do this by playing games online, a world in which they can be more than in reality. Some do it by exiting this world altogether. Some get up and start changing the world around them until it suits them better and get a kick out of that. And some choose drugs. Sometimes 'softer' drugs like cannabis or piles of chocolate, sometimes harder drugs like alcohol, heroin, cocaine or whatever floats their boat. It's systemic as well. In a world where there are so many people driven to the fringe of society, where the only way to make a killing is to do something illegal because you don't stand much chance of doing it the honest way plenty of people will take the chance to become a cog in the machine that supplies the escapists with their method of escape. That's a societal problem, not something you're going to solve with a war. It will take time, tolerance, education and real involvement on all levels of society. You're not going to win that by either bombing some fields, raiding some labs or by killing or busting a few people. The only thing that will do is drive the price up because the drugs will become more scarce.

ErrantX 17y ago
That's pretty clarified :) thanks (I wont reply, it will turn into an essay :D) EDIT: though I will point out your definition of war is somewhat a false argument. Because your referring very specifically to it as a "state of being" - either we are at war or at peace. Which isn't always the case. In a very real sense governments are in conflict with "other parties" over the legality of drugs, their importation and production. So in an absolutely literal sense there is a drugs war :) The simile with Cancer is also incorrect as well as Cancer is a non-concious entity compared to, say, a band of drugs traffickers. Though I do whole heartedly agree it is a much overused word. [I suspect the original poster is referring, to give him the benefit of the doubt, to the actual "battles" with the drug cartels. That is something no amount of legalisation will stop, at least initially; so his is, it is true, a naive view]
gaius 17y ago
Yes but no-one really thinks the "war on drugs" is a war on chemical compounds. It's shorthand for "war against drug cartels" which are entities as well organized and armed as many nation-states. Since the "other side" in the war on drugs is actually people, then all the use of language is coherent. A druglord absolutely could negotiate the terms of a surrender if it were in his (organization's) interest to do so, just as a regular Head of State could. Now let me be clear that I am not taking a "drugs are bad" position here. I am pointing out that the "war on drugs" is actually fought by men in uniform (even if that's just gang colours) shooting at each other with automatic weapons over who controls what bit of territory. If that's not a war then what is? Similarly "war on terror". No-one thinks it's a war against an abstract emotion...
- jacquesm 17y ago
  How convenient not? Everybody uses their own emotional background to give it the meaning that suits them best. That's the whole point of using slogans, we all identify with them in our own personal way.