5 ms·

1-"degenerate shitbags, or maybe adults making a rational decision to work for an employer balancing risk & compensation in a chronically high unemployment soci

by sami36 14y ago

1-"degenerate shitbags, or maybe adults making a rational decision to work for an employer balancing risk & compensation in a chronically high unemployment society working for a company operating in a very high margin business. 2- "there are bullets enough in this world to solve such a problem." the same amount that solved the Afhanistan war, right ? 3- "I think first of finding ways to prevent children from becoming addicted to hard drugs" . what a patronizing & woefully uninformed profiling of the typical drug user. 4- "Unfortunately, just because something can be accomplished, doesn't mean that it's going to happen." 50 years, trillions of dollars & hundreds of thousands of dead beg to differ.

phaus 14y ago
I'd much rather the Mexican people deal with the Cartel than the United States. I wasn't suggesting a U.S. Invasion. Clearly it's difficult to solve someone else's problem. If the overwhelming majority of the Afghan people wanted the Taliban gone, and they had U.S. support, and we didn't fuck a bunch of stuff up, then of course we could have rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. If the Afghans legitimately trusted us, and supported us in large enough numbers, the Taliban would have had trouble finding even caves to hide in. Also I never made any claim that the "average" drug user was a child, just that it is a huge problem. The drug addicts that you know might have been adults when they first started using, but without exception, every one of the dozens of drug addicts I know started as a teenager. I can only speak from personal experience. Feigning ignorance to the fact that there is an epidemic of children in our country becoming addicted to drugs is the most "woefully misinformed" thing I've ever heard. Just because someone wants to be pro-legalization, doesn't mean they have to ignore reality. Edit: Apparently I have a habit of using the terms drug addict and drug user interchangeably. No offense was intended by this and I'll try to be more specific in the future. I understand that there is a distinct difference.
- pyoung 14y ago
  It still sounds like you think of a 'typical drug user' as an addict. I think the point was that a good portion of drugs are consumed by fairly responsible, recreational users.
  - phaus 14y ago
    Just because I was talking about addicts, doesn't mean that I think every drug user is a stereotypical addict. Likewise, just because I said that a large number of kids are getting addicted to drugs, doesn't mean that I said that all drug users started as children. Initially, I just mentioned that there is an absurd number of children being exposed to extremely harmful drugs before they are old enough to legitimately make a decision for themselves. There are drugs that are relatively harmless and then there are drugs that will literally destroy your life in a short amount of time, like Meth or Crack. On a personal level I don't really care what a consenting adult does as long as they keep it off the roads, out of the workplace, and as long as it doesn't cause them to mistreat, abuse, or neglect their families. I've encountered many types of drug users in my lifetime. Several years ago we let my brother in law live with us for 6 months because he was homeless and trying to get off of heroin. He started doing hard drugs as a young teenager because his adopted parents were abusive drug addicts. We watched him regain his health only to have him get addicted to pain medication just a few months after he moved away. On the other side of the spectrum, I've run into people who have used drugs for 30-40 years for recreational purposes, while enjoying a happy marriage, successful kids, and a steady job.
  - antidoh 14y ago
    If you know that the money you spend on your recreational drug flows to drug cartels and funds murder and torture, then yes, you are a "responsible" user, responsible for murder and torture. Don't buy the drugs and you starve the cartels. You don't have to wait for legalization to have a direct if small impact on murder and torture. Sure, campaign for legalization, but you can take direct action this minute.
    - king_jester 14y ago
      The solution to the problem of money going to drug cartels isn't to get everyone to stop using drugs. That approach has been tried and failed spectacularly. When there are capitalistic, systemic problems with drugs and violence, we need to take a systemic approach and legalize and regulate drugs. Demand isn't going anywhere.
- Myrmornis 14y ago
  Yes because people who use drugs are "drug addicts". And don't forget the "pushers" who hang around outside schools. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap2ss-Wz6Fo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap2ss-Wz6Fo
- bluedanieru 14y ago
  >If the overwhelming majority of the Afghan people wanted the Taliban gone, and they had U.S. support, and we didn't fuck a bunch of stuff up, then of course we could have rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. If the Afghans legitimately trusted us, and supported us in large enough numbers, the Taliban would have had trouble finding even caves to hide in. Ugh. I would be nice if Americans could start learning the right lessons from their past mistakes. Listen, I'm rather sorry to tell you this, but just fuck off. Please.
  - phaus 14y ago
    Why don't you try explaining what the right lessons are instead of telling people to "fuck off?"
    - bluedanieru 14y ago
      Because the right lessons are self-evident and if you can't see that then there isn't much point in bashing my head against a wall trying to explain that, no, the reason you failed in Afghanistan and Iraq and, for that matter, Vietnam, isn't because of some failed public relations campaign. (But I'll give it a go regardless.) It's because, regardless of intent, war is hell, and eventually everyone will know someone who has had an arm blown off as collateral damage, or they'll read about the fifth wedding ceremony this year to have been accidentally vaporized by a cluster bomb. Everyone will either have been directly affected by, or at least know someone directly affected by, the ongoing civil war instigated and perpetuated by a foreign power. I mean, can you imagine if the Chinese tried to do nation building the US? No matter how bad it were to get in the States, people would resent that and they would be right to. And it doesn't help that the US has a well-deserved reputation, in the Middle East and elsewhere, of propping up failed states run by ruthless, brutal dictators. You have no moral high ground to claim. None. But honestly, this is just a basic, common sense thing. Your military should engage the armed forces of other countries when those armed forces pose some existential threat to you. In no other case is it appropriate. If you don't already know this it's because you are willfully ignorant to it. So, please just fuck off.
      - 14y ago

by sami36 14y ago

phaus 14y ago

I'd much rather the Mexican people deal with the Cartel than the United States. I wasn't suggesting a U.S. Invasion. Clearly it's difficult to solve someone else's problem. If the overwhelming majority of the Afghan people wanted the Taliban gone, and they had U.S. support, and we didn't fuck a bunch of stuff up, then of course we could have rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. If the Afghans legitimately trusted us, and supported us in large enough numbers, the Taliban would have had trouble finding even caves to hide in. Also I never made any claim that the "average" drug user was a child, just that it is a huge problem. The drug addicts that you know might have been adults when they first started using, but without exception, every one of the dozens of drug addicts I know started as a teenager. I can only speak from personal experience. Feigning ignorance to the fact that there is an epidemic of children in our country becoming addicted to drugs is the most "woefully misinformed" thing I've ever heard. Just because someone wants to be pro-legalization, doesn't mean they have to ignore reality. Edit: Apparently I have a habit of using the terms drug addict and drug user interchangeably. No offense was intended by this and I'll try to be more specific in the future. I understand that there is a distinct difference.

pyoung 14y ago
It still sounds like you think of a 'typical drug user' as an addict. I think the point was that a good portion of drugs are consumed by fairly responsible, recreational users.
- phaus 14y ago
  Just because I was talking about addicts, doesn't mean that I think every drug user is a stereotypical addict. Likewise, just because I said that a large number of kids are getting addicted to drugs, doesn't mean that I said that all drug users started as children. Initially, I just mentioned that there is an absurd number of children being exposed to extremely harmful drugs before they are old enough to legitimately make a decision for themselves. There are drugs that are relatively harmless and then there are drugs that will literally destroy your life in a short amount of time, like Meth or Crack. On a personal level I don't really care what a consenting adult does as long as they keep it off the roads, out of the workplace, and as long as it doesn't cause them to mistreat, abuse, or neglect their families. I've encountered many types of drug users in my lifetime. Several years ago we let my brother in law live with us for 6 months because he was homeless and trying to get off of heroin. He started doing hard drugs as a young teenager because his adopted parents were abusive drug addicts. We watched him regain his health only to have him get addicted to pain medication just a few months after he moved away. On the other side of the spectrum, I've run into people who have used drugs for 30-40 years for recreational purposes, while enjoying a happy marriage, successful kids, and a steady job.
- antidoh 14y ago
  If you know that the money you spend on your recreational drug flows to drug cartels and funds murder and torture, then yes, you are a "responsible" user, responsible for murder and torture. Don't buy the drugs and you starve the cartels. You don't have to wait for legalization to have a direct if small impact on murder and torture. Sure, campaign for legalization, but you can take direct action this minute.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    The solution to the problem of money going to drug cartels isn't to get everyone to stop using drugs. That approach has been tried and failed spectacularly. When there are capitalistic, systemic problems with drugs and violence, we need to take a systemic approach and legalize and regulate drugs. Demand isn't going anywhere.
Myrmornis 14y ago
Yes because people who use drugs are "drug addicts". And don't forget the "pushers" who hang around outside schools. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap2ss-Wz6Fo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap2ss-Wz6Fo
bluedanieru 14y ago
>If the overwhelming majority of the Afghan people wanted the Taliban gone, and they had U.S. support, and we didn't fuck a bunch of stuff up, then of course we could have rid Afghanistan of the Taliban. If the Afghans legitimately trusted us, and supported us in large enough numbers, the Taliban would have had trouble finding even caves to hide in. Ugh. I would be nice if Americans could start learning the right lessons from their past mistakes. Listen, I'm rather sorry to tell you this, but just fuck off. Please.
- phaus 14y ago
  Why don't you try explaining what the right lessons are instead of telling people to "fuck off?"
  - bluedanieru 14y ago
    Because the right lessons are self-evident and if you can't see that then there isn't much point in bashing my head against a wall trying to explain that, no, the reason you failed in Afghanistan and Iraq and, for that matter, Vietnam, isn't because of some failed public relations campaign. (But I'll give it a go regardless.) It's because, regardless of intent, war is hell, and eventually everyone will know someone who has had an arm blown off as collateral damage, or they'll read about the fifth wedding ceremony this year to have been accidentally vaporized by a cluster bomb. Everyone will either have been directly affected by, or at least know someone directly affected by, the ongoing civil war instigated and perpetuated by a foreign power. I mean, can you imagine if the Chinese tried to do nation building the US? No matter how bad it were to get in the States, people would resent that and they would be right to. And it doesn't help that the US has a well-deserved reputation, in the Middle East and elsewhere, of propping up failed states run by ruthless, brutal dictators. You have no moral high ground to claim. None. But honestly, this is just a basic, common sense thing. Your military should engage the armed forces of other countries when those armed forces pose some existential threat to you. In no other case is it appropriate. If you don't already know this it's because you are willfully ignorant to it. So, please just fuck off.
    - 14y ago