To be a feminist is to be evolved and enlightened

D

david starling

Well-known member
Dirius said:
I have no problem with countries legislating the use of drugs and allowing for a legal trade. I don't believe however that every society is in condition to succesfully do so.

Some countries have legalised drugs to a succesfull degree, but most of those countries were highly efficient democracies to begin with, with a low crime rate and low instances of goverment corruption, and a general custom of respecting the law by most of its citizens. The case Oddity made for legalising drugs in Canada comes as a perfect example, and I would agree with him that Canada is a prime candidate to attempt drug legislation given that it is a highly efficient country with a rather respectful society, and legalising drugs (at least some of them) would perhaps improve some of the problems they may have.

But when it comes to inefficient goverments with high levels of corruption, such as most of South America, parts of Asia or Africa, I would certainly be against drug legislation, given you would only be giving more power to those that have benefitted from the drug trade for years. I also have some views regarding imposing restrictions to the availabiliy of certain drugs, and also the implications of certain habits in society, but most of these can be debated in an ordained fashion. Also in most of these countries, large drug cartel conglomerates exist, which should be utterly destroyed.
Click to expand...

We have a large drug cartel here, called "Big Pharma", short for the Pharmaceutical Industry. While it does good in some areas, it does tremendous harm in others. Lately, one of its prescription drugs, fentanyl, has been showing up in the illegal drug, heroin, a lethal combination. Oxycodone, another prescription drug, highly addictive, has become part of the illegal drug trade. No chance Big Pharma will be regulated more closely, since they contribute so heavily to political campaigns of both parties.
Your argument that the cartels need to be "destroyed", even though there's no way that can be done by governments they own, or can intimidate, makes me think legalization should at least be attempted, even in the third world. I don't see how it would make things any worse, and might make them better.
There was a Socialist, a real one, an anti-Capitalist, not a proponent of the Capitalistic Social-Safety-Net, on a call in radio show years back. He was living in what used to be called a "ghetto" area of L.A., and drive by killings had become so frequent, due to "turf wars" by local drug gangs, that he was saying that ending those should be a top priority. So, I called in and suggested that legalizing now illegal drugs would do that quite effectively, just as legalizing alcohol had ended the drive by shootings during alcohol Prohibition. His response was that we can't do that, because then the big Capitalist Corporations would take over the drug trade, and the poor neighborhoods would be deprived of the income the sale of illegal drugs was providing.
Just kicking it around. I don't have a perfect solution either, but I believe we should start by considering legalization as a vital first step, then deal with the new problems that will surely cause. But the new problems are almost certain to be far less violent than those resulting from the already proven failure of outright prohibition.
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
david starling said:
We have a large drug cartel here, called "Big Pharma", short for the Pharmaceutical Industry. While it does good in some areas, it does tremendous harm in others. Lately, one of its prescription drugs, fentanyl, has been showing up in the illegal drug, heroin, a lethal combination. Oxycodone, another prescription drug, highly addictive, has become part of the illegal drug trade. No chance Big Pharma will be regulated more closely, since they contribute so heavily to political campaigns of both parties.
Your argument that the cartels need to be "destroyed", even though there's no way that can be done by governments they own, or can intimidate, makes me think legalization should at least be attempted, even in the third world. I don't see how it would make things any worse, and might make them better.
There was a Socialist, a real one, an anti-Capitalist, not a proponent of the Capitalistic Social-Safety-Net, on a call in radio show years back. He was living in what used to be called a "ghetto" area of L.A., and drive by killings had become so frequent, due to "turf wars" by local drug gangs, that he was saying that ending those should be a top priority. So, I called in and suggested that legalizing now illegal drugs would do that quite effectively, just as legalizing alcohol had ended the drive by shootings during alcohol Prohibition. His response was that we can't do that, because then the big Capitalist Corporations would take over the drug trade, and the poor neighborhoods would be deprived of the income the sale of illegal drugs was providing.
Just kicking it around. I don't have a perfect solution either, but I believe we should start by considering legalization as a vital first step, then deal with the new problems that will surely cause. But the new problems are almost certain to be far less violent than those resulting from the already proven failure of outright prohibition.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't end the violence in any case. Cartels are nothing more than mafia, and would simply deal in other types of illegal markets. Its not like they are suddenly going to turn into honest businessmen and act according to the law. Furthermore, a certain manner of black market trade would still exist in the lower classes of society, because a lot of people will be too poor to purchase drugs (which I presume will be taxed heavily like tobacco is). Do you think mexican cartels won't still try to hold some presence in the U.S. and provide drugs at a cheaper level? They may even turn more violent.
​

This is why the argument that legalising drugs would eliminate drug violence and that the "war on drugs" isn't needed is just sketchy in my opinion. You would still need to fight and eliminate this cartels regardless of drug legislation.

So it won't really change much. Perhaps they may change from drug traffic to human traffick, weapon traffick, etc.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
Dirius said:
It wouldn't end the violence in any case. Cartels are nothing more than mafia, and would simply deal in other types of illegal markets. Its not like they are suddenly going to turn into honest businessmen and act according to the law. So in essence, you would still need to fight and eliminate this cartels regardless of drug legislation.
​

This is why the argument that legalising drugs would eliminate drug violence is just sketchy in my opinion. Furthermore, a certain manner of black market trade would still exist in the lower classes of society, because a lot of people will be too poor to purchase drugs (which I presume will be taxed heavily like tobacco is).

So it won't really change much. Perhaps they may change from drug traffic to human traffick, weapon traffick, etc.
Click to expand...

It would alter this violent, dirty, tried and failed mess we've got now. There was much less violence after Prohibition ended, and then the problem shifted to other areas. Automobiles equipped with radar, already being used in Japan to prevent collisions, will solve one of the most serious problems that alcohol, especially, causes on the highway. Seeking solutions other than violence against violence makes the most sense. Why keep making the same mistake over and over again, and expecting a different outcome?
 
Dirius

Dirius

Well-known member
david starling said:
It would alter this violent, dirty, tried and failed mess we've got now. There was much less violence after Prohibition ended, and then the problem shifted to other areas. Automobiles equipped with radar, already being used in Japan to prevent collisions, will solve one of the most serious problems that alcohol, especially, causes on the highway. Seeking solutions other than violence against violence makes the most sense. Why keep making the same mistake over and over again, and expecting a different outcome?
Click to expand...

Violence after prohibition did not stop. It simply changed from one business to another. It was the same people doing it. You still need to fight crime in every country, and violence can't really be eliminated. Again, people don't suddenly become good citizens just because a law is passed. Furthermore, the drug trade is conducted by international cartels that are more likely to turn violent by the loss of market.

I find some quality to the libertarian argument for drug legislation and I think it should be explored, but not for the one about ending violence, because the evidence in favour of the latter is quite poor.
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
Dirius said:
Violence after prohibition did not stop. It simply changed from one business to another. It was the same people doing it. You still need to fight crime in every country, and violence can't really be eliminated. Again, people don't suddenly become good citizens just because a law is passed. Furthermore, the drug trade is conducted by international cartels that are more likely to turn violent by the loss of market.

I find some quality to the libertarian argument for drug legislation and I think it should be explored, but not for the one about ending violence, because the evidence in favour of the latter is quite poor.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant violence concerning the Alcohol trade pretty much stopped. Law enforcement needed new reasons to kick down doors, and handcuff and surveil and shoot people. They simply switched targets from alcohol to the drugs mostly being used by minorities at the time. That's how the "War on Drugs" started, and how these cartels were created in the first place. The billions spent on this misbegotten war goes directly to law enforcement, and these agencies don't want to lose their source of funding. That's the REAL addiction. We called it "Cops and Robbers" when we were kids. No robbers, no cops needed, in that game. Now, it's no illegal substances, no DEA. Also, the C.I.A. uses drug money for clandestine operations. Well known and documented. So, it's hopeless. :sad:
 
JUPITERASC

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
david starling said:
At least we agree on that last point.

Setting standards
for the
behavior of ALL countries
such as calling for a ban on the use of chemical weapons, "disappearing" people, and death squads
is just that--setting standards

saying something
is just plain WRONG
nothing personal.
Even if
nothing positive
can be done about it
it still should be said
by Free World nations [IMO].

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Since I believe a carefully thought out end to the "War on Drugs" is a priority, and you believe that to be a wrong course of action, we'll just have to disagree on that as well.

Thanks for your consistent, well-considered reply!
Click to expand...
Siriusly some example of "setting standards" :smile:

fairtrade-copy.jpg



ob_c11c99_cmnj1h0wgaaxsyb.jpg



truthsyria.jpg





imageedit_4665_2381683763.jpg




noname-e1430834722363.jpg



Cqfsu8KWgAAhuxj.jpg
 
CapAquaPis

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
Ironically, the future king (crown prince) of Saudi Arabia wants the country to adopt a new moderate Islam and abandon Wabhabism, their state version of Islam...because of ISIS are Wabhabis or Salafis, and some of the Saudi parliament funded ISIS, they will eventually be removed from power.
 
D

demetraceres

Well-known member
Dirius said:
The reason why you live in a free society in which you can complain in the first place, is because it works upon the principles I am defending here.

The consequences of my system of belief have been in place for over a hundred years now, and they seem to work pretty finee given most succesful countries in the world are capitalist republics that respect the rule of law. The alternative to what I propose is what you defend, which is authoritharian rule, is what will bring disastrous consequences to society.
Click to expand...

Could you be more delusional?
 
Last edited:
D

david starling

Well-known member
JUPITERASC said:
images



soros-3.jpg



Soros.jpg.png



George%2BSoros%2Bcontrolled%2Bopposition.jpg
Click to expand...

Nah. It's obviously Trump.
Fake news about 14 year-old Soros helping Hitler, incidentally. He once had to act as a courier, but he warned the recipients not to report to the location as ordered. That was a few messages, one time. He was posing as a German boy in order to stay alive, but he never caused anyone else's death. Right-wing zealots are just mad that someone with money is helping left-wing causes, instead of joining the Koch brothers in electing right-wing Republicans.
Trump's obviously the "rude Beast" of the Yeats poem. His followers see him as a divinity, which fits the description.
 
Last edited:
CapAquaPis

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) might be the first US senator in over 150 years to be impeached, unless he decides to resign while he's going to be investigated for sexual harrassment/assault/misconduct as a senator. He did similar acts onto women as an actor, something he just won't stop...and he's not the only actor, nor politician in these scandals: John Conyers, Roy Moore and our president (good ol' Trump).
 
D

david starling

Well-known member
CapAquaPis said:
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) might be the first US senator in over 150 years to be impeached, unless he decides to resign while he's going to be investigated for sexual harrassment/assault/misconduct as a senator. He did similar acts onto women as an actor, something he just won't stop...and he's not the only actor, nor politician in these scandals: John Conyers, Roy Moore and our president (good ol' Trump).
Click to expand...

Given the timing, it's tempting to attribute these latest advancements for feminism on Jupiter in Scorpio (my Natal-chart placement).
 
CapAquaPis

CapAquaPis

Well-known member
david starling said:
Given the timing, it's tempting to attribute these latest advancements for feminism on Jupiter in Scorpio (my Natal-chart placement).
Click to expand...

Yes, Franken resigned...whatdayaknow. Is Jupiter in Scorpio (this happens every 12 years) a malefic? When I was born in 1980, Jupiter was in Virgo - conjunct Saturn most of the year, while the two conjunct Mars on Feb. 15th (my birthdate).
 
Top