5 ms·

I'm curious why the option of blocking this business completely is not an option. US has the biggest army in the world, right? Doesn't it have a budget for occu

by oakaz 13y ago

I'm curious why the option of blocking this business completely is not an option. US has the biggest army in the world, right? Doesn't it have a budget for occupying an entire country in somewhere far away? Then what does stop you from asking this simple question: why don't we fight for more life quality for everybody? Why doesn't Japan has this problem, have you ever asked this to yourself?

Crito 13y ago
Are you suggesting that we enact martial law for the sake of prohibition? Are you insane?
oakaz 13y ago
Yeah may be, or you have too much dead brain cells.
- Crito 13y ago
  I know I shouldn't feed clear trolls, but what exactly are you suggesting then? Because it sure as hell sounds like you are just interested in putting the warfare into "class warfare". Prohibition does not work. The war on drugs does not work. Throwing more money at it will not work.
  - oakaz 13y ago
    Yeah, investing on occupying oil lands is more profitable, right? Don't even mention about class. If you had a piece of idea of social classes, you'd first support their life quality and realize that the drug industry is already a device of the system to knock them down. Plus, what I proposed was to war against drug cartels, not users. And you just keep that bullshit with the assumption of "drug war doesn't work" oh really? I know that hopeless face of the government, when it comes to stopping the crime, the eagle turns to a rabbit!
    - Crito 13y ago
      Prohibition feeds the cartels and gangs. If you want the criminal underworld to stop wreaking havoc on the lower classes, you need to take away their most profitable business, not cement their monopoly. It is just common sense that has been repeated ad nauseam throughout this thread, try reading what other people are saying. The War on Drugs has been massively unsuccessful. The history of it gives us absolutely no reason to think that throwing even more money at it will improve anything at all. Seriously, get real: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/29/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-american-drug-policy/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/29/t... (And you are delusional if you think I support wars. What the hell are you even driving at there?)
      - oakaz 13y ago
        Those numbers are bullshit. The american view of drug industry, is more than bullshit. I see the streets. Go to 6th and Market now, or 16th and Mission, both streets have tents that sell hard drugs. Every night, there are a lot of things going on there. Who does even attempt to stop them? I lived in multiple countries, and the toleration I see here is just incredible. I saw those who sell and use heroins, and we (me and bunch of coworkers) just passed them. Just a regular day. I don't believe your numbers. Plus; I believe, this entire business is a way to keep the poor classes as poor. Go read about Hasan Sabbah.
        ryanjshaw 13y ago
        I think there's an unstated idea with the person you're debating here that drug addiction is a medical/psychological issue that drug cartels profit from by taking advantage of people with a disposition towards substance abuse, not social or commercial problem. Do you now understand why you're getting nowhere in this debate? It's like trying to convince somebody that the solution to cancer is bringing in the army to defeat viruses. If you disagree with the fundamental assumption, you would do well to state that.
        vidarh 13y ago
        "This entire business" only keeps people poor through the dual prongs of criminalisation keeping prices up and allowing people to be thrown in jail and thus making them far less employable. The drug on war is a combination of christian moralism and class warfare, pure and simple, just like prohibition was. Just like then, the moralists managed to convince a lot of people that it was to protect or save them, and just like then it proved to do far more damage than good.
  - nate_meurer 13y ago
    Crito I think you actually are being trolled here. Don't waste your energy on this.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Yeah... that seems apparent now. I should avoid the internet more often on weeknights...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
scotty79 13y ago
> Doesn't it have a budget for occupying an entire country in somewhere far away? Yes. It doesn't. US couldn't occupy successfully neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. If you'd like to occupy someone ask British. They successfully occupied India for many years.
- gaius 13y ago
  Well, using the technique the Romans used on us. Figure out who is already powerful in the country you want to conquer and convince them they will be better off. Instead of King of X you will only be Duke of X, but look at all this lovely stuff, and you can borrow a legion to knock off your rivals if you need to. But the important corollary of that is that the lives of the common people got better too. Not so in Afghanistan.
toyg 13y ago
>Why doesn't Japan has this problem Because their organised crime is sort-of regulated and accepted as an inevitable part of society. Wanna try that? That's even more of a paradigm shift, I don't think you're ready for it.
vidarh 13y ago
Consider that one of the countries the US recently has been occupying - Afghanistan - is one of the largest sources of opium poppies in the world, and hence heroin, despite the years of US military presence and massive amounts of money invested into trying to reduce it. Supposedly heroin output In other words: The US army is wholly insufficient to prevent heroin production in even a single country. And if they were to succeed, they'd just have made production vastly more profitable, and hence attractive, for people elsewhere. > Then what does stop you from asking this simple question: why don't we fight for more life quality for everybody? Why do you think this would improve life quality for anyone? Have you known any high functioning heroin addicts? Chances are you have even if you think you don't, but just don't know it. I have known at least one - it took a year of dealing with this person regularly before we noticed, and then only because the war on drugs causes massive price instability. Suddenly he had problems getting money enough for his abuse, and ended up stealing some. Until then, he'd been able to hide his abuse for years from everyone including his closest family. Luckily for him, he got it together enough to check himself into treatment before he got into further The heroin users you see on the street is not nearly all of the heroin users out there, by far, any more than the alcoholics you see on the street are all alcohol users. Even heroin is not so addictive that everyone who use it even have a strong dependency on it; you find recreational heroin users out there. Of those that are dependent, not nearly everyone have problems managing their daily life in ways that makes it likely for people around them to have any idea they are using. A huge part of the problem with even drugs that can be as nasty as heroin can be is the criminalisation that makes it impossible for users to get properly manufactured doses of known strength at a predictable low price. Most of the nastiest side effect of even many of the really hard drugs are legal and/or problems related to impurities and unpredictable doses rather than actual medical problems related to the drug itself with "normal" use. There are a few drugs where extensive abuse does have nasty medical side effects, yes. But so does alcohol and nicotine - do you propose we use military means to stop all manufacture of those too (if you do, I suggest you look up prohibition to see how that worked out last time) Want to fight to improve life quality? Legalise pretty much everything, and invest the money currently spent on fighting it into enforcement of strict quality standards, regulating manufacturing and sale, and providing far more treatment and support for those who do need it. The war on drugs has nothing to do with making things better - it is a mix of religiously founded moralism and a war on the poor (and by extension, in the US it is a war on black people).
al2o3cr 13y ago
People manage to OD on hard drugs in prison. In no-contact, 23-hour-a-day isolation kind of prison. Just exactly how much MORE invasive of a state would we have to put up with to "fight for more life quality"?

by oakaz 13y ago

Crito 13y ago

Are you suggesting that we enact martial law for the sake of prohibition? Are you insane?

oakaz 13y ago

Yeah may be, or you have too much dead brain cells.

Crito 13y ago
I know I shouldn't feed clear trolls, but what exactly are you suggesting then? Because it sure as hell sounds like you are just interested in putting the warfare into "class warfare". Prohibition does not work. The war on drugs does not work. Throwing more money at it will not work.
- oakaz 13y ago
  Yeah, investing on occupying oil lands is more profitable, right? Don't even mention about class. If you had a piece of idea of social classes, you'd first support their life quality and realize that the drug industry is already a device of the system to knock them down. Plus, what I proposed was to war against drug cartels, not users. And you just keep that bullshit with the assumption of "drug war doesn't work" oh really? I know that hopeless face of the government, when it comes to stopping the crime, the eagle turns to a rabbit!
  - Crito 13y ago
    Prohibition feeds the cartels and gangs. If you want the criminal underworld to stop wreaking havoc on the lower classes, you need to take away their most profitable business, not cement their monopoly. It is just common sense that has been repeated ad nauseam throughout this thread, try reading what other people are saying. The War on Drugs has been massively unsuccessful. The history of it gives us absolutely no reason to think that throwing even more money at it will improve anything at all. Seriously, get real: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/29/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-american-drug-policy/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/29/t... (And you are delusional if you think I support wars. What the hell are you even driving at there?)
    - oakaz 13y ago
      Those numbers are bullshit. The american view of drug industry, is more than bullshit. I see the streets. Go to 6th and Market now, or 16th and Mission, both streets have tents that sell hard drugs. Every night, there are a lot of things going on there. Who does even attempt to stop them? I lived in multiple countries, and the toleration I see here is just incredible. I saw those who sell and use heroins, and we (me and bunch of coworkers) just passed them. Just a regular day. I don't believe your numbers. Plus; I believe, this entire business is a way to keep the poor classes as poor. Go read about Hasan Sabbah.
      - ryanjshaw 13y ago
        I think there's an unstated idea with the person you're debating here that drug addiction is a medical/psychological issue that drug cartels profit from by taking advantage of people with a disposition towards substance abuse, not social or commercial problem. Do you now understand why you're getting nowhere in this debate? It's like trying to convince somebody that the solution to cancer is bringing in the army to defeat viruses. If you disagree with the fundamental assumption, you would do well to state that.
      - vidarh 13y ago
        "This entire business" only keeps people poor through the dual prongs of criminalisation keeping prices up and allowing people to be thrown in jail and thus making them far less employable. The drug on war is a combination of christian moralism and class warfare, pure and simple, just like prohibition was. Just like then, the moralists managed to convince a lot of people that it was to protect or save them, and just like then it proved to do far more damage than good.
- nate_meurer 13y ago
  Crito I think you actually are being trolled here. Don't waste your energy on this.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Yeah... that seems apparent now. I should avoid the internet more often on weeknights...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

scotty79 13y ago

> Doesn't it have a budget for occupying an entire country in somewhere far away? Yes. It doesn't. US couldn't occupy successfully neither Afghanistan nor Iraq. If you'd like to occupy someone ask British. They successfully occupied India for many years.

gaius 13y ago
Well, using the technique the Romans used on us. Figure out who is already powerful in the country you want to conquer and convince them they will be better off. Instead of King of X you will only be Duke of X, but look at all this lovely stuff, and you can borrow a legion to knock off your rivals if you need to. But the important corollary of that is that the lives of the common people got better too. Not so in Afghanistan.

toyg 13y ago

>Why doesn't Japan has this problem Because their organised crime is sort-of regulated and accepted as an inevitable part of society. Wanna try that? That's even more of a paradigm shift, I don't think you're ready for it.

vidarh 13y ago

Consider that one of the countries the US recently has been occupying - Afghanistan - is one of the largest sources of opium poppies in the world, and hence heroin, despite the years of US military presence and massive amounts of money invested into trying to reduce it. Supposedly heroin output In other words: The US army is wholly insufficient to prevent heroin production in even a single country. And if they were to succeed, they'd just have made production vastly more profitable, and hence attractive, for people elsewhere. > Then what does stop you from asking this simple question: why don't we fight for more life quality for everybody? Why do you think this would improve life quality for anyone? Have you known any high functioning heroin addicts? Chances are you have even if you think you don't, but just don't know it. I have known at least one - it took a year of dealing with this person regularly before we noticed, and then only because the war on drugs causes massive price instability. Suddenly he had problems getting money enough for his abuse, and ended up stealing some. Until then, he'd been able to hide his abuse for years from everyone including his closest family. Luckily for him, he got it together enough to check himself into treatment before he got into further The heroin users you see on the street is not nearly all of the heroin users out there, by far, any more than the alcoholics you see on the street are all alcohol users. Even heroin is not so addictive that everyone who use it even have a strong dependency on it; you find recreational heroin users out there. Of those that are dependent, not nearly everyone have problems managing their daily life in ways that makes it likely for people around them to have any idea they are using. A huge part of the problem with even drugs that can be as nasty as heroin can be is the criminalisation that makes it impossible for users to get properly manufactured doses of known strength at a predictable low price. Most of the nastiest side effect of even many of the really hard drugs are legal and/or problems related to impurities and unpredictable doses rather than actual medical problems related to the drug itself with "normal" use. There are a few drugs where extensive abuse does have nasty medical side effects, yes. But so does alcohol and nicotine - do you propose we use military means to stop all manufacture of those too (if you do, I suggest you look up prohibition to see how that worked out last time) Want to fight to improve life quality? Legalise pretty much everything, and invest the money currently spent on fighting it into enforcement of strict quality standards, regulating manufacturing and sale, and providing far more treatment and support for those who do need it. The war on drugs has nothing to do with making things better - it is a mix of religiously founded moralism and a war on the poor (and by extension, in the US it is a war on black people).

al2o3cr 13y ago

People manage to OD on hard drugs in prison. In no-contact, 23-hour-a-day isolation kind of prison. Just exactly how much MORE invasive of a state would we have to put up with to "fight for more life quality"?