I've been thinking about this for a while. Despite being a musician and a rock climber (if you're one of these, you'll know what why this is a surprise) I've never smoked pot. As a kid it was a strait-laced "pot-is-bad" mentality. Now that I've grown older and somewhat more liberal it's partially because of legality, but mostly because I don't want to put a single dollar in the hands of the Narco-barons that commit atrocities all over Mexico and Central America in the form of kidnappings (of both rich and migrant workers) mass murders, assasinations, etc. Organizations that often make more money for the sale of drugs to the USA than the -now largely ineffective- governments in the country they operate out of.
I realize that the American Drug War and insistence on low-tolerance laws has made these substances valuable, illicit and created the opportunities for the drug lords, but I still feel chagrined when a kid in a Che t-shirt will talk about standing up for the worker and the oppressed one minute and in the next marvel about the wonders of the marijuana that he bought (third hand...) from some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet.
All this to say, what responsibility do you think U.S. drug users (who the stats tell us are fairly evenly distributed across income, race and geographic groups) and their money bear for the violence in the countries that grow and transit illegal drugs?
As an aside, the wife and I may be planning a trip to Colorado soon where the pot is controlled, taxed, grown locally, now legal (mostly) and reportedly of high quality!
I would say only as much as those who buy gasoline help fuel terrorism.
If anything, the US government bears as much responsibility for keeping it illegal. If Joe Average wants some pot, it's their fault he has to turn to the black market rather than being able to openly grow some in his backyard.
And no, before I get rushed by the moral absolutists, I don't do drugs, but I have zero problems with people who do, so long as they're not hurting anyone else in the direct process.
Cannabis is pretty crime free. In the UK it's grown in houses that are converted to cannabis farms, pretty high intensively. There are no gangs or wars over it though. I'd be surprised if there were in the States, given how easy that gak is to grow.
Testify wrote: Cannabis is pretty crime free. In the UK it's grown in houses that are converted to cannabis farms, pretty high intensively. There are no gangs or wars over it though. I'd be surprised if there were in the States, given how easy that gak is to grow.
From what I understand, from growing up in a fairly famous Pot growing region of the US (Oregon and the Pacific Northwest for those interested) the Pot industry is not really the one to "blame" for the drug wars or many problems...
There are those, I know, who would say that pot is the gateway drug, and that ALL people who smoke pot are going to branch into coke, heroine and meth, etc. (which to me is a load of bollocks, as I know that there are many out there who can and have maintained self control enough to keep things at pot)
I think that many of the "stronger" drugs do carry some more of the blame. To me, this is because, to my knowledge we don't or aren't able to grow the plant that makes cocaine or heroine, etc. We have to rely on other countries whose climates are more able to sustain those things. So yeah, I think that people do do the so called, hard drugs do fuel the drug wars, but if we single out cannabis, I don't think that particular brings much to the "fight".
I also think that, were the US to legalize, and strictly control, license and regulate the sale and use of certain drugs, it would do a great deal to alleviate some of the pressures of the drug war.
Testify wrote: Cannabis is pretty crime free. In the UK it's grown in houses that are converted to cannabis farms, pretty high intensively. There are no gangs or wars over it though. I'd be surprised if there were in the States, given how easy that gak is to grow.
You would be very very wrong.
That surprises me. Given how spread out the United States is I'm surprised local operations are not more widespread. If I lived in a large American city (pick one) I could get a small factory/warehouse unit in a quiet place 30 or 40 miles away, plant 100 or so seeds with some UV lights, and use my connections in the city to sell it. It would cost me far, far less than importing it from Mexico, and carries far less risk. Put it this way, people in the UK grow cannabis in crowded terraced houses for years and no one figures. A secure warehouse could go undetected for decades.
Is there something about the States that would make this unfeasable or wrong?
Testify wrote: Cannabis is pretty crime free. In the UK it's grown in houses that are converted to cannabis farms, pretty high intensively. There are no gangs or wars over it though. I'd be surprised if there were in the States, given how easy that gak is to grow.
You would be very very wrong.
That surprises me. Given how spread out the United States is I'm surprised local operations are not more widespread. If I lived in a large American city (pick one) I could get a small factory/warehouse unit in a quiet place 30 or 40 miles away, plant 100 or so seeds with some UV lights, and use my connections in the city to sell it. It would cost me far, far less than importing it from Mexico, and carries far less risk. Put it this way, people in the UK grow cannabis in crowded terraced houses for years and no one figures. A secure warehouse could go undetected for decades.
Is there something about the States that would make this unfeasable or wrong?
Power Grid... because of how anti-pot people are, the drug task forces (at least in the Cleveland area) look for korean* families that buy up 3 houses next to each other, and then create a grow-op in the basement of the central house and use the power from the three houses to "mask" the power usage for their growing.
*Note: Korean drug operations were the last big bust in the Cleveland area.
Given that it is Illegal to grow Cannibis that kinda puts a wrench in the works.
Even in states that allow medical growing and posession, you are limited in what you can grow. A handful of plants is all medical users are allowed. Anything larger is illegal.
Plus if you are growing a large quantity, you make yourself a target not only for the Cops but also the local drug lords. The drug lords hate competition, they WILL kill you, your family, and your dog over some weed.
Its also more convenient to just buy your weed from the local supplier then it is to set up your own plants. UV lights arn't exactly cheap and the growing area takes up space. Plus the annoyance of having to hide the operation.
And all legalizing the drug will do is make it harder to distinguish between legal and illegal weed. people under the legal age will still have to get busted, and then there is the tax issue. The cartels will still smuggle weed in and sell it as a cheaper alternative to the legal stuff.
And it all eventually goes to the violence in Mexico and other places. The Drug Lords have set themselves up as rules in their own little areas and rule with an ironfist.
Testify wrote: Cannabis is pretty crime free. In the UK it's grown in houses that are converted to cannabis farms, pretty high intensively. There are no gangs or wars over it though. I'd be surprised if there were in the States, given how easy that gak is to grow.
You would be very very wrong.
That surprises me. Given how spread out the United States is I'm surprised local operations are not more widespread. If I lived in a large American city (pick one) I could get a small factory/warehouse unit in a quiet place 30 or 40 miles away, plant 100 or so seeds with some UV lights, and use my connections in the city to sell it. It would cost me far, far less than importing it from Mexico, and carries far less risk. Put it this way, people in the UK grow cannabis in crowded terraced houses for years and no one figures. A secure warehouse could go undetected for decades.
Is there something about the States that would make this unfeasable or wrong?
I think you underestimate the demand of weed in the US. We have a lot of local growers, but even they cannot meet the demand without risking their operation being found.
That is from what I have seen in my area though. With two states being completely legal now, things may begin to shift in a big way. I have already noticed some changes.
Testify wrote: Cannabis is pretty crime free. In the UK it's grown in houses that are converted to cannabis farms, pretty high intensively. There are no gangs or wars over it though. I'd be surprised if there were in the States, given how easy that gak is to grow.
You would be very very wrong.
That surprises me. Given how spread out the United States is I'm surprised local operations are not more widespread. If I lived in a large American city (pick one) I could get a small factory/warehouse unit in a quiet place 30 or 40 miles away, plant 100 or so seeds with some UV lights, and use my connections in the city to sell it. It would cost me far, far less than importing it from Mexico, and carries far less risk. Put it this way, people in the UK grow cannabis in crowded terraced houses for years and no one figures. A secure warehouse could go undetected for decades.
Is there something about the States that would make this unfeasable or wrong?
Missouri used to the the king of Pot production... just throw out the seeds among the brushes.. then harvest.
But.. now... not so much. The kingpins have moved on to Meth production.
We still have issues with "Smurfing" around here... bastich.. I can only get sudaphed behind the Rx counters...
daedalus wrote: I would say only as much as those who buy gasoline help fuel terrorism.
If anything, the US government bears as much responsibility for keeping it illegal. If Joe Average wants some pot, it's their fault he has to turn to the black market rather than being able to openly grow some in his backyard.
And no, before I get rushed by the moral absolutists, I don't do drugs, but I have zero problems with people who do, so long as they're not hurting anyone else in the direct process.
Quoted for truth, it's also hard to hold people responsible for the actions of others, because while there might be influence, they still choose to do it.
But of a poser this one. I would say that if you buy say coke then you do kind of have to share some of the blame, even if I don't think you are directly culpable.
On the whole I would say that I'm a Libertarian when it comes to drugs in that I think they should be legal and if they where allot less harm would be caused by them. However whilst it remains illegal I think people should be wary of what they take and be aware of where it comes from. By all means campaign for it to be legal, I'll support you all the way. But don't just snort it and pretend you don't know about the bodies.
As for pot, well my pot smoking days are long behind me but I only ever bought from friends who I knew where on the whole decent people. I knew a few unsavory characters who as well as being dealers where toerags in general and I never bought from them.
On the whole I have no issue with home growing operations. In fact I think it would be sensible if it was made legal to 'grow your own' tomorrow. Anything that helps stop the demand for black market drugs is a good thing.
Stuff drugs, as others have said they fund other behaviour and wreck lives of people due to money issues.
I have thought about selling them to saps though for monies. Dangerous ish but making 150k plus where I live, or millions if selling the big stuff.
One big guy near here is uber rich from it everyone knows how he got the money but he's not directly linked and they "hire" his service to transfer the money.
Testify wrote: Cannabis is pretty crime free. In the UK it's grown in houses that are converted to cannabis farms, pretty high intensively. There are no gangs or wars over it though. I'd be surprised if there were in the States, given how easy that gak is to grow.
I'm pretty sure having a cannabis farm is far from being crime free. There are gangs fighting over it. There is violence associated with cannabis and it's culture. Use of cannabis contributes towards crime and a host of other issues.
I have been ambivalent towards cannabis use, though experience is making me veer towards saying no full stop.
More OT I would think that users and an ignorant population bear some responsibility.
I saw a cannabis farm that had guns, electric door knobs and knuckle dusters, the crop was over £2 million drugs are big mobney and big illegal money means fighting, your not going to phone the police to say someone tried to burgle my weed farm...
InquisitorVaron wrote: I saw a cannabis farm that had guns, electric door knobs and knuckle dusters, the crop was over £2 million drugs are big mobney and big illegal money means fighting, your not going to phone the police to say someone tried to burgle my weed farm...
In america mabye, ours have farmers who are illegal immigrants who tend to the crop and are set up with UV lights and heat dampeners to stop thermal imaging helicoptors from finding the farms.
My definition of badass is your bad enough to be put in prision but not so scary that people won't try to bum you. Perhaps that's how the word came into being. #lolftwepicthrowupinmouthforushinghastagreferences
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bah all I wrote is insebsible drivel disregard it
Automatically Appended Next Post: Insensible. Damn this phone.
Most Latinos I know blame drug users for financing the cartels in Mexico and parts south. Several found themselves faced with the decision of staying and putting themselves and their families at risk of getting killed or move to the U.S. For a safer life.
The cartels are also moving more and more into this country and setting up shop to increase profits by eliminating having to smuggle drugs.
It doesn't take a lot of google searching to arrive at the conclusion that drug users are in large part to blame for the killing going on down in Mexico.
You want to see how ineffective the drug war has been? Look at prohibition doing nothing but escalate organized crime over alcohol. Prohibition did nothing to prevent alcoholism, crime, murder, or - to an extent- even public health.
People don't realize that drugs themselves really aren't always the problem - it's people. People create situations in their lives and others that make escape from reality an appealing option. If the US really wanted to fight a war on drugs, they'd put their money in programs that would prevent people from abusing them. Alcohol, marijuana, shrooms, and MDMA themselves are not potently addictive substances - those who become addicted are usually socially addicted (use with friends - friends leave and the individual continues alone.) but all have adverse effects on the body - as do any drugs (prescription or otherwise) that alter the body's chemistry.
Alcohol and tobacco are the two greatest killers in the US - yet they remain legal not because the US has thrown vast amounts of money at the issues, they absolutely destroyed the tobacco industry and rightly so, not because the population of the US raised enough money to combat the lobbyists in congress, but because they accepted the general consensus that smoking is horrible for your health.
Now, 70% of people who smoke - even those who are addicted - want to quit, and the companies are paying through the nose to render healthcare costs for their carcinogenic products. To alleviate their costs, they've moved to the unregulated markets of... basically the rest of the world... and are selling back to these countries where our illegal drugs are coming from - where there are murders, rapes, kidnappings, mutilations, amputations, tortures and other unspeakable atrocities - killing as many if not more innocents the drug cartels prey upon with cancers, respiratory disorders, and cardiovascular problems that can be treated here in the states, but are in no way even remotely affordable for these developing nations.
Makes you not really want to live on this planet anymore when you realize that the war on drugs really isn't just a name.
Good luck on the Colorado trip Its going to be a while before anyone can just walk in and procure said dried plant material.
Dont worry just wait enough years and we'll glorify the Mexican narcos like we did the rum-runners and eventually elect one President. We're do for a Catholic really.
Testify wrote: Cannabis is pretty crime free. In the UK it's grown in houses that are converted to cannabis farms, pretty high intensively. There are no gangs or wars over it though. I'd be surprised if there were in the States, given how easy that gak is to grow.
You would be very very wrong.
Yes that is complete bollocks. If you think cannabis has no relation to crime in the UK you're pretty naive.
Relapse wrote: Most Latinos I know blame drug users for financing the cartels in Mexico and parts south. Several found themselves faced with the decision of staying and putting themselves and their families at risk of getting killed or move to the U.S. For a safer life.
The cartels are also moving more and more into this country and setting up shop to increase profits by eliminating having to smuggle drugs.
It doesn't take a lot of google searching to arrive at the conclusion that drug users are in large part to blame for the killing going on down in Mexico.
Same could be said of the guns that are doing the actual shooting that are coming from? Oh yeah America. So they're just as culpable.
Relapse wrote: Most Latinos I know blame drug users for financing the cartels in Mexico and parts south. Several found themselves faced with the decision of staying and putting themselves and their families at risk of getting killed or move to the U.S. For a safer life.
The cartels are also moving more and more into this country and setting up shop to increase profits by eliminating having to smuggle drugs.
It doesn't take a lot of google searching to arrive at the conclusion that drug users are in large part to blame for the killing going on down in Mexico.
Same could be said of the guns that are doing the actual shooting that are coming from? Oh yeah America. So they're just as culpable.
But in all fairness, they wouldn't have the money or incentive to buy all those guns without drug sales.
Testify wrote: Cannabis is pretty crime free. In the UK it's grown in houses that are converted to cannabis farms, pretty high intensively. There are no gangs or wars over it though. I'd be surprised if there were in the States, given how easy that gak is to grow.
You would be very very wrong.
Yes that is complete bollocks. If you think cannabis has no relation to crime in the UK you're pretty naive.
It's not naive. Money has everything to do with crime in the UK, US, or anywhere for that matter. It has little to do with the drugs themselves, just the fact that you can grow 6-8 plants in your basement and reliably pull in 4-5 thousand every 3 months from it. If you could do that from bootleg DVD sales then organized crime would be copying DVDs. Your opinion is holdover from the Reefer Madness/ DARE days where drug addled fiends rob old ladies to get their next fix. Its purely money. Nothing else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: People that don't think pot is the cause of a lot of the violence in Mexico are also wrong:
Relapse wrote: Most Latinos I know blame drug users for financing the cartels in Mexico and parts south. Several found themselves faced with the decision of staying and putting themselves and their families at risk of getting killed or move to the U.S. For a safer life.
The cartels are also moving more and more into this country and setting up shop to increase profits by eliminating having to smuggle drugs.
It doesn't take a lot of google searching to arrive at the conclusion that drug users are in large part to blame for the killing going on down in Mexico.
But in all fairness, they wouldn't have the money or incentive to buy all those guns without drug sales.
So how could we possibly take the money away from them? How did we take the money away from the runrunners and gangsters of the 30's again?
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if we really wanted to get into stats about crimes being committed under the influence I can guarantee you by a huge margin its alcohol. Fights, robberies, motor vehicle deaths, child abuse, spousal abuse, you name it. Number one substance involved is alcohol. Not coke. Not heroin. Not pot. Alcohol.
But thats cheaply available at every corner store within walking distance to most of the population.
Dutch, I honestly don't see how we can take the money away from them. I just subscribe to the knowledge that the demand for various drugs that they are all to willing to commit murder to supply is to blame for 99% ofo the killing going on down there.
Honestly? Yes. I would like to see a world where drug users aren't relegated to the scum of the earth. I would like to see regulated drug dispensing centers where drugs are sold at safe amounts to adults that meet certain requirements with a barrage of help and information about these drugs being a precursor to anytime you buy said drugs.
This is also a pipe dream. It also probably would never work for many reasons.
I also know that much like lowering the drinking age to 18 it would be horrible. It should be though, honestly. But we as a culture put ourselves where we are. Partly because the minute we found out about drugs en masse they were instantly locked away and became a forbidden fruit.
Do you see drugs ever going away? Mankind has been trying to get fethed up ever since we realized the world. Thats not gonna change. But I do think that through understanding, compassion, and most of all education we can change the negative aspects of all drugs.
I'm pretty sure having a cannabis farm is far from being crime free. There are gangs fighting over it. There is violence associated with cannabis and it's culture. Use of cannabis contributes towards crime and a host of other issues..
Thats because its illegal and anything on the black market has grossly inflated prices. If it was legal all the criminality associated with cannabis production and supply would vanish/transfer onto something else. As it is the profit margins arn't all that high and as such there isn't all that violence associated with the pot trade. It exists of course, but its quite low key from what I have been told.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, the thing is a real weed farm is hidden in the hills and the growers will see you before you see them. And they will shoot you first.
If I was a professional weed grower I wouldn't go around shooting people.
No. But a good percentage of those people on your bus do enjoy drugs. Coke, Marijuana, Meth, Caffeine, Alcohol, Prescriptions, stop me here if Im wrong but Im sure most will fit into at least one of those drugs.
I work in the medical field and what I can tell you is that to legalize pot would mean nothing and I highly doubt that it causes crime in other countries which it is grown. As a person who can prescirbe narcotics with the swipe of the pen it is easier for a drug addict to get a vial full of percocet or oxycontin from a authorized precriber and those prescribed drugs cause more deaths in the country which they were prescribed. You will rarely hear about people killing one another for pot. People in the cities where I live and where I gre up are killing one another for the prescription drugs.
No. But a good percentage of those people on your bus do enjoy drugs. Coke, Marijuana, Meth, Caffeine, Alcohol, Prescriptions, stop me here if Im wrong but Im sure most will fit into at least one of those drugs.
Forgive me, but the relevance of this post is lost to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Generalstoner wrote: I work in the medical field and what I can tell you is that to legalize pot would mean nothing and I highly doubt that it causes crime in other countries which it is grown. As a person who can prescirbe narcotics with the swipe of the pen it is easier for a drug addict to get a vial full of percocet or oxycontin from a authorized precriber and those prescribed drugs cause more deaths in the country which they were prescribed. You will rarely hear about people killing one another for pot. People in the cities where I live and where I gre up are killing one another for the prescription drugs.
I think the fact that people in Mexico aren't sewing human faces onto soccer balls over percocet is a salient point.
The pharmaceutical industry sucks. This is a separate issue.
Testify wrote: Cannabis is pretty crime free. In the UK it's grown in houses that are converted to cannabis farms, pretty high intensively. There are no gangs or wars over it though. I'd be surprised if there were in the States, given how easy that gak is to grow.
You would be very very wrong.
Yes that is complete bollocks. If you think cannabis has no relation to crime in the UK you're pretty naive.
It's not naive. Money has everything to do with crime in the UK, US, or anywhere for that matter. It has little to do with the drugs themselves, just the fact that you can grow 6-8 plants in your basement and reliably pull in 4-5 thousand every 3 months from it. If you could do that from bootleg DVD sales then organized crime would be copying DVDs. Your opinion is holdover from the Reefer Madness/ DARE days where drug addled fiends rob old ladies to get their next fix. Its purely money. Nothing else.
No. I wasn't talking about drug addled friends robbing old laddies, try reading to original post and understanding the context of mine. So criminals make money from other vices too? No gak sherlock. I was responding to someone who stated "Cannabis is pretty crime free", that is naive. Whether that is a point for or against the legalisation of the drug is another issue and not something I commented on.
Testify needs to understand that his crime free weed he buys from that friendly student has come through a chain of people. He needs to ask himself what those people do when they don't get paid. Because they are not calling the police.
Like most of the gang violence of the 1930's, that was one group of thugs killing another group of thugs. They largly left the civilian population out of it. (Not totally, by any stretch. No few innocent bystanders caught stray rounds meant for other gansters. But the deliberate targeting of civilians was rare.)
As a result, the civilian population largely turned a blind eye to the activities of the gangs. In many cases bank robbers were considered heroes; people who had lost everything to the bank - or everthing IN the bank when it collapsed - weren't about to shed any tears when a bank got robbed, and the bank robber would at least put the money back into circulation.
Eilif wrote: IAll this to say, what responsibility do you think U.S. drug users (who the stats tell us are fairly evenly distributed across income, race and geographic groups) and their money bear for the violence in the countries that grow and transit illegal drugs?
Yes, but we don't care about the people in those places. Like, at all.
And it's kind of a hard to support that line of thinking, anyway. Unless you go out to the middle of nowhere, start a farm, live off the land, and try never to interact with another human at all, at some point someone is destroying the world and/or doing violence on your behalf to bring you the stuff you want or need. That's just the way it is. The best you can do is be thankful for how lucky you are for the things you have and pick the level of acceptable self-delusion you are comfortable with regarding the consequences of your appetite.
Forgive me, but the relevance of this post is lost to me.
He may be trying to establish a moral majority, and then draw attention to the relative cognitive dissonance resulting from a democracy that does not follow the wishes of it's moral majority.
"Jerry spent some time in Michigan
A twenty year vacation, after all he had a dime
A dime is worth a lot more in Detroit
A dime in California, a twenty dollar fine"
Narcotics politics have two parts. Common public good, and backdoor dealings.
But personally I don't think the Drug War had much fatal side effects to Americans when compared to the Volstead Act in the 20s. Thanks to a tightened american law enforcement bureaucracy.
daedalus wrote: If anything, the US government bears as much responsibility for keeping it illegal. If Joe Average wants some pot, it's their fault he has to turn to the black market rather than being able to openly grow some in his backyard.
And no, before I get rushed by the moral absolutists, I don't do drugs, but I have zero problems with people who do, so long as they're not hurting anyone else in the direct process.
1. or do you think that American cops still being as corrupt as they was when Al Capone was a Kingpin?
2. Narcotics are so dangerous and i've been intensively educated that way, so I don't do drugs too! But dating a hot white (and p'rhaps, tattooed) modelswoman who occasionally takin' pills is still okay as long as she 'fill my needs' =^.^=
Like most of the gang violence of the 1930's, that was one group of thugs killing another group of thugs. They largly left the civilian population out of it. (Not totally, by any stretch. No few innocent bystanders caught stray rounds meant for other gansters. But the deliberate targeting of civilians was rare.)
As a result, the civilian population largely turned a blind eye to the activities of the gangs. In many cases bank robbers were considered heroes; people who had lost everything to the bank - or everthing IN the bank when it collapsed - weren't about to shed any tears when a bank got robbed, and the bank robber would at least put the money back into circulation.
And did the robbers part of any well-established gangsters of any creed? did the Mafia rob the bank too? didn't they earn enough cashes on smuggling operations and brothels? meow.
Generalstoner wrote: I work in the medical field and what I can tell you is that to legalize pot would mean nothing and I highly doubt that it causes crime in other countries which it is grown. As a person who can prescirbe narcotics with the swipe of the pen it is easier for a drug addict to get a vial full of percocet or oxycontin from a authorized precriber and those prescribed drugs cause more deaths in the country which they were prescribed. You will rarely hear about people killing one another for pot. People in the cities where I live and where I gre up are killing one another for the prescription drugs.
I think the fact that people in Mexico aren't sewing human faces onto soccer balls over percocet is a salient point.
The pharmaceutical industry sucks. This is a separate issue.
I assure you a sizable portion of the Mexican drug trade involves illicit pharmaceuticals. Doctors in America aren't the only way to get oxy's. Pretty much anyone can walk into a drug store in Mexico and walk out with whatever you want, and a lot of that is being smuggled across the border.
Generalstoner wrote: I work in the medical field and what I can tell you is that to legalize pot would mean nothing and I highly doubt that it causes crime in other countries which it is grown. As a person who can prescirbe narcotics with the swipe of the pen it is easier for a drug addict to get a vial full of percocet or oxycontin from a authorized precriber and those prescribed drugs cause more deaths in the country which they were prescribed. You will rarely hear about people killing one another for pot. People in the cities where I live and where I gre up are killing one another for the prescription drugs.
So 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico are getting killed just for the hell of it?
Saying American drug users are responsible for crime in other countries is just dumb. Are you responsible for Chinese slave labor with all your Iphones? Are you responsible for children in sweatshops because you just had to get another pair of Nikes?
To put blame on one group and not on yourself is just foolish. Buying almost anything can cause your money to go to something you don't believe in. Thats why you transferred your money for a good. What the seller does with your money isn't your concern.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Saying American drug users are responsible for crime in other countries is just dumb. Are you responsible for Chinese slave labor with all your Iphones? Are you responsible for children in sweatshops because you just had to get another pair of Nikes?
Many people feel at least some responsibility for the harm done by companies they give money to. This is why boycotts exist. I know people who refuse to buy clothing made overseas in sweatshops, and instead buy only from companies who use first-world labor.
A lot of people genuinely DO care about this stuff; which is why the investigations into Foxconn in China were kind of a big deal, because a fair number of Apple customers would care if actual slave labor were involved.
Generalstoner wrote: I work in the medical field and what I can tell you is that to legalize pot would mean nothing and I highly doubt that it causes crime in other countries which it is grown. As a person who can prescirbe narcotics with the swipe of the pen it is easier for a drug addict to get a vial full of percocet or oxycontin from a authorized precriber and those prescribed drugs cause more deaths in the country which they were prescribed. You will rarely hear about people killing one another for pot. People in the cities where I live and where I gre up are killing one another for the prescription drugs.
So 30,000 plus people a year in Mexico are getting killed just for the hell of it?
No. They're getting killed for control of a criminal (and thus highly profitable, due to scarcity) product.
If it were decriminalized, we'd likely see results like we did after the Volstead Act went away; and violence over production and distribution of alcohol stopped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volstead_Act
Yes. Yes they do. The adult thing would be to admit it to yourself, and subsequently, that you don't care.
Would you say that they're more or less responsible than gasoline users?
He may be biased, but then again, we openly accept Infowars as a source for a topic of discussion around here, so I'm dropping it anyway.
This could be good subject matter for another thread. This one is about how people don't care about their recreational drug use being the cause of thousands of people a year getting killed in Mexico, Cental and South America.
Manny I get that some people do care. But the majority don't. Its only a fringe group that really worries about where all their clothing, food, electronics, home goods, etc. come from. Its a commendable thing, but its very few people honestly.
Has anyone ever shopped at Wal-Mart? Yeah your money probably went into something detestable. But somehow drug users are worse? Why? Because we've been indoctrinated to think so? If its purely the death aspect, than any one of the Defense industries whose bomb missed the target and killed civilians is even worse.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Manny I get that some people do care. But the majority don't. Its only a fringe group that really worries about where all their clothing, food, electronics, home goods, etc. come from. Its a commendable thing, but its very few people honestly.
Has anyone ever shopped at Wal-Mart? Yeah your money probably went into something detestable. But somehow drug users are worse? Why? Because we've been indoctrinated to think so? If its purely the death aspect, than any one of the Defense industries whose bomb missed the target and killed civilians is even worse.
I agree with you that it's a bit hypocritical for people to buy legal consumer products from companies who have unethical and harmful business practices, while decrying buyers of illegal drugs for the same thing.
That being said, I don't think it's legitimate to dismiss people who make a habit of ethical buying or pretend that they don't exist, or claim that it doesn't matter at all, like you did before. Many people weigh at least SOME ethical factors into their purchasing decisions. Whether it be to avoid shopping at Wal-Mart because they don't like their practices, avoid buying from Citgo because they don't like Chavez, or avoid buying from Chic-fil-a because they don't like the owner's opinions and behavior toward homosexuals.
Im not dismissing them, I said its commendable. But it is a minority. A small one at that. And this being the interwebz I usually take anyone saying that they always do that with a pound of salt.
And Relapse this thread could be about how alcohol kills more people than cartels by miles every year but that drug is completely legal. Or it could be about how caffeine addiction leads to deplorable conditions in coffee growing countries.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My whole point is unless your actively sourcing out everything you buy to make sure you agree with how it was made, you shouldn't feel superior to drug users. If your money goes to a sweatshop or slave labor, you're not any better of a person. And for most Americans, we've all supported something like this. So get off your high horse. Pun intended.
I don't think you can reasonably claim that there's no distinction.
People make varying levels of distinction and put varying levels of effort into sourcing ethical products. Some pay no attention at all. Some pay only a little bit of attention, and avoid only certain companies or products which come to their attention in the news or through friends or relatives they respect. A few take it really seriously.
Even the difference between legal and illegal is a real distinction. Obeying the law is virtuous, unless you are very clear that the law in question is unjust, which people can debate.
The illegal drug trade does include a lot of really bad things. The cartel-related murder rate in Mexico is a whole 'nother level of bad beyond some worker exploitation in Foxconn factories.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: I guess it all comes down to personal views. To me a few thousand deaths isnt worse than a couple hundred million in slave labor.
Maybe the quote "judge not lest ye be judged" would fit this situation?
That's a cop out. Alot of folks are bringing up the comparisons to oil companies, wal-mart, etc. Those are not the issue I started this thread about and referring to them only allows folks to say "it's bad, but what about..." or to sidestep the issue by pointing to other examples of worker exploitation.
We can make a judgement about one thing before, at the same time or after making a judgement about another. That one is also bad, doesn't mean that the first isn't.
Put China, Walmart, and the middle east aside for a minute and address the question at hand.
Your question Eliif? No I dont feel bad. Why I brought up all these other scenarios is because you cant just look at the drug trade in a vacuum.
I feel as bad buying a gram as you do buying a pair of Nikes. Both end up with our money in someone elses hands. Both go to a deplorable end.
You didn't start talking about these other companies but to look at one set of consumers and say that their goods have brought more hurt and suffering than any other good is disingenuous. And in my mind every bad aspect about the drug trade brought up so far could be cured by legalization.
And the whole point of that quote was to say before you say what someone else does with their money is wrong maybe you should look at where your money goes. It is related whether or not you want to believe it.
I only dropped a bible quote as I though this thread was dead. And here I am bringing it back up. This I do feel bad about. About as bad as your average Wal-Mart shopper.
As the thread is slowing, it may be too late for this to have any effect, but what got me thinking in this direction was looking at the drug dealers in my neighborhood (inner-city westside of Chicago) and seeing the at-first-glance ambiguity of how they are both a great source of revenue for their families and also a real blight on the community as a whole. In the end however it becomes clear that they are a true detractor and drain on the neighborhood and it's people.
Obviously the "war on drugs", ineffective policing and some amount of community tolerance and fear bear shares of the blame. However, I do feel that the folks who drive through here every day and buy drugs bear some responsibility for the effects that drug dealers bring on regular working-poor folks. Ththeir money supports the dealers, buys guns, keeps heroin cheap and available, housing prices depressed, businesses away, etc, etc.
It's not a pretty sight, but that got me thinking about how much worse the effects of the drug trade are on communities and workers in places like Columbia and Mexico and I felt that with the news of migrant killings and violence in places like Juarez would be a place to start that folks would be familiar with.
Just wanted to dispel any ideas that folks might have that this thread is unconsidered, or arising in a vacum. I do get a bit of a chip on my shoulder sometimes when speaking to folks who dismiss both the drug trade and wal-mart when they don't have to live daily with the most harmful effects of either (there a I go again making assumptions about fellow dakkaites) and I should probably be a bit more patient. Still...
Dutchkills Rambo and those of similar opinion, Perhaps I was a bit hard on you ( and the rest of the folks coming from your point of view). I agree that there are alot of other things sold that have bad consequences on those where they are produced and transited. I have been thinking alot about where my money goes recently, but this thread was about a specific topic.
I think where I disagree with you and the others who expressed similar opinions is is:
1) That poor labor conditions in wal-mart producer countries are the same degree of bad as the mass murders and kidnapping in mexico and columbia.
2) The idea that it is disingenuous to talk about one without the other in the same conversation. I don't agree. If we only talked about everything at once, we'd never adress any issue. That's why organizations generally pick one thing and focus on it. (Aids Foundation, Amnesty international, etc)
3) That "every bad aspect of the drug trade brought up so far" could be cured by legalization. I'm all for decrimilaization (for users) of most/all and even legalization (for distribution) of some drugs, and it would go a long way to fixing many of the problems, but
- You're still going to have drug users and the negative effects on their lives.
-Completely legalizing hard drugs opens a whole other can of worms on the already over-extended medical and social support infrastructure.
Very nice post Eilif. Well thought out and well written.
I understand where your coming from. It's really the whole vicious cycle type of scenario. I don't pretend to think that a lot of dealers aren't scumbags. But then again just a lot of people are scumbags. Especially when you start throwing tons of money at them. I can't say I have the answer to this all, but the racist, bs war on drugs needs to stop. Its both a huge drain on our society and it also lines the pockets of a very few.
As to to your other points:
1. Why I think the murders in these countries isn't worse than slave labor countries is purely a numbers game. Your talking a couple tens of thousands of deaths vs. literally hundreds of millions of people working in sweatshops.
2. Your right we should focus on the topic at hand. That doesn't make the comparisons any less valid.
3. We already have problems with addicts. I think the best way to treat them is with compassion and education. Not incarceration. But it seems like we agree there.
If your buying taxed'ed regulated pot, then you can rest knowing your money is not funding hardened violent criminals.
Otherwise...
(This is regards to violence caused by dealers of drugs. Personally I think that THC/LSD/MDMA are less dangerous than alcohol. Meth, and Heroin though is very, very bad)
Monster Rain wrote: The simple fact is that if there is no demand a good, there will be no impetus to supply it.
That was the logic behind alcohol prohibition, which has already been pointed out in this thread as the means by which organized crime became rampant. People will want to by drugs of some kind and always will, therefore there will be a need and someone to supply it. The war on drugs bears the responsibility for the violence at home and abroad by not allowing local growers to supply local users like we do with food, alcohol, and all other things that people consume for recreation.
Willful ignorance and half-assed rationalization don't change that.
Naive expectations that needs can be rationalized or legislated away won't change the fact that the needs will continue to exist.
We can talk about how prohibition didn't work, but that doesn't address the OP's point that drug users are accomplices in the violence surrounding the drug trade.
There are other points brought up about sweat shops and gasoline which also merit thought and discussion, but they would probably be done better justice with a thread of their own instead of being buried in this one.
If American drug users are morally culpable, then so are American governments for placing control of such a desirable and lucrative product in the hands of murderous outlaws.
Relapse wrote: We can talk about how prohibition didn't work, but that doesn't address the OP's point that drug users are accomplices in the violence surrounding the drug trade.
There are other points brought up about sweat shops and gasoline which also merit thought and discussion, but they would probably be done better justice with a thread of their own instead of being buried in this one.
Prohibition for alcohol and prohibition for drugs is the same thing since alcohol is a drug. That addresses the point directly, if drugs weren't illegal, the commerce of drugs wouldn't include violence, just like how legally sold alcohol doesn't have an underlying violent element to it.
Relapse wrote: We can talk about how prohibition didn't work, but that doesn't address the OP's point that drug users are accomplices in the violence surrounding the drug trade.
There are other points brought up about sweat shops and gasoline which also merit thought and discussion, but they would probably be done better justice with a thread of their own instead of being buried in this one.
Prohibition for alcohol and prohibition for drugs is the same thing since alcohol is a drug. That addresses the point directly, if drugs weren't illegal, the commerce of drugs wouldn't include violence, just like how legally sold alcohol doesn't have an underlying violent element to it.
In both cases, the users were and are accomplices in the killings and violence going on. If the stuff were decriminalized across the board for everything from pot to meth to cocaine, the users would still be in large part responsible for the killings that had happened to date.
Basically, the desire to get high outweighed the care for human life.
Relapse wrote: We can talk about how prohibition didn't work, but that doesn't address the OP's point that drug users are accomplices in the violence surrounding the drug trade.
There are other points brought up about sweat shops and gasoline which also merit thought and discussion, but they would probably be done better justice with a thread of their own instead of being buried in this one.
Prohibition for alcohol and prohibition for drugs is the same thing since alcohol is a drug. That addresses the point directly, if drugs weren't illegal, the commerce of drugs wouldn't include violence, just like how legally sold alcohol doesn't have an underlying violent element to it.
In both cases, the users were and are accomplices in the killings and violence going on. If the stuff were decriminalized across the board for everything from pot to meth to cocaine, the users would still be in large part responsible for the killings that had happened to date.
Basically, the desire to get high outweighed the care for human life.
Does my buying alcohol now that it is legal mean I an responsible for mob killings from Prohibition? Were the people who drank in speakeasies responsible for the deaths of smugglers?
I think there is a massive difference between the Gangsters of Prohibition and the current Drug Lords.
the Gangsters weren't commiting what amounts to outright genoicde in some cases. Terrorizing the civilian populace and generally being evil.
The Gangsters fought with each other over territoy but overall left civilians out of it. And if you did get on their badside your life wasn't necessarily in danger, it depended on the severity of the crime.
The Drug Lords will kill you, rape your wife, and terrorize your neighbors on a whim.
As I said, when it was illegal the people who drank in the speakeasies were accomplices in the killings because the money they gave supplied the motivation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: I think there is a massive difference between the Gangsters of Prohibition and the current Drug Lords.
the Gangsters weren't commiting what amounts to outright genoicde in some cases. Terrorizing the civilian populace and generally being evil.
The Gangsters fought with each other over territoy but overall left civilians out of it. And if you did get on their badside your life wasn't necessarily in danger, it depended on the severity of the crime.
The Drug Lords will kill you, rape your wife, and terrorize your neighbors on a whim.
This is exactly the thing I've been told is going on in Mexico.
Relapse wrote: As I said, when it was illegal the people who drank in the speakeasies were accomplices in the killings because the money they gave supplied the motivation.
A) That takes away the responsability of the smugglers who decided willfully to engage in what they knew was a dangerous activity.
B) Each of the individuals that drank shared a portion of the motivation so small that to dissociating themselves from the activity wouldn't have changed the the profit margin in any noticeable way.
C) You've jumped from bearing responsibility to being accomplice. That's an awful lot of responsability.
70 plus bodies found in a shed of people who refused to smuggle drugs for the cartels show that they don't exclude innocent people from their killings.
These people refused to supply drugs to users up here and were killed because of it.
Relapse wrote: As I said, when it was illegal the people who drank in the speakeasies were accomplices in the killings because the money they gave supplied the motivation.
A) That takes away the responsability of the smugglers who decided willfully to engage in what they knew was a dangerous activity.
B) Each of the individuals that drank shared a portion of the motivation so small that to dissociating themselves from the activity wouldn't have changed the the profit margin in any noticeable way.
C) You've jumped from bearing responsibility to being accomplice. That's an awful lot of responsability.
I say accomplice, because they are not solely responsible, but are a large part of the problem and motivation to kill. It's like the old saying that goes: No single drop of water holds itself responsible for the flood.
That the American gangsters as a whole during the prohibition era didn't tend to act as inhumanely as the modern ones do is just because of the times. If America implemented prohibition again then they wouldn't all suddenly regain that old criminal code. The same goes for the drug rings back then, they followed different morals. Trying to applying the ethics from decades ago to the modern criminal world is a little silly.
If it wasn't drugs that the cartels were using as a source of income it'd be another banned, limited, or expensive product. Hell they already do it. As long as there's something someone wants then there's going to be a criminal way of getting it, so unless its the case that everything become free and legal there's always going to be some gang pushing a product for sustenance. Get rid of the drug problem and you still have the illegally manufactured goods one. Get rid of that and there's human trafficking, and more. Of course the market's what's fueling the industry, but there's no way that anyone could hope to starve the criminal world, there's always going to be that need for a limited product.
Wyrmalla wrote: That the American gangsters as a whole during the prohibition era didn't tend to act as inhumanely as the modern ones do is just because of the times. If America implemented prohibition again then they wouldn't all suddenly regain that old criminal code. The same goes for the drug rings back then, they followed different morals. Trying to applying the ethics from decades ago to the modern criminal world is a little silly.
If it wasn't drugs that the cartels were using as a source of income it'd be another banned, limited, or expensive product. Hell they already do it. As long as there's something someone wants then there's going to be a criminal way of getting it, so unless its the case that everything become free and legal there's always going to be some gang pushing a product for sustenance. Get rid of the drug problem and you still have the illegally manufactured goods one. Get rid of that and there's human trafficking, and more. Of course the market's what's fueling the industry, but there's no way that anyone could hope to starve the criminal world, there's always going to be that need for a limited product.
So you are saying use drugs and forget about all the people being killed along with the destruction of a country? That getting high for a night is worth multiple people dying?
A lot of bad stuff happens in the world, if you stop to think about it you'll either kill yourself or go join the Peace Corps. I'm not saying don't deal with a problem, just that as soon as you solve it another one's going to turn up somewhere else. I don't advocate criminality, but its so much of a problem that I just try and avoid it. I suspect the guys who are doing it probably have a completely different mindset from us and don't care for the ethical issues that result from their actions. Hell if your a freedom fighter in a country who's just killed a local diplomat's children because he's killed yours who's the bad guy in that situation? If you kill a family to better your own life then there's a clear definition of who the bad guy is, but what if drugs are your only sustenance because the local mob or the like's taken the farm land from you? Its situational, morality's a throw away thing when it comes to human need. =P
A) Most people don't know where their drugs are being grown/produced.
B) The User/Dealer relationship is not one where you can start inquiring about the origins of the drug, for reasons which are again more linked to the criminality status. If it wasn't, you'd be able to have a fair and ethical market choice just like coffee.
C) Most drug users I've known are more sensitive to humanitarian issues than non-user, so I beleive they would refuse to purchase if they knew the drug was bloodied.
Wyrmalla wrote: A lot of bad stuff happens in the world, if you stop to think about it you'll either kill yourself or go join the Peace Corps. I'm not saying don't deal with a problem, just that as soon as you solve it another one's going to turn up somewhere else. I don't advocate criminality, but its so much of a problem that I just try and avoid it. I suspect the guys who are doing it probably have a completely different mindset from us and don't care for the ethical issues that result from their actions. Hell if your a freedom fighter in a country who's just killed a local diplomat's children because he's killed yours who's the bad guy in that situation? If you kill a family to better your own life then there's a clear definition of who the bad guy is, but what if drugs are your only sustenance because the local mob or the like's taken the farm land from you? Its situational, morality's a throw away thing when it comes to human need. =P
People have to be willing to take a stand against the evils in this world or they will overtake us. Look at it this way, if the average drug user were presented with a situation where everytime he used drugs instead of people he doesn't know in another country, but someone he cared about would be killed in some unpleasant way or another,would the attraction to drugs be there?
Kovnik Obama wrote: A) Most people don't know where there drugs are being grown/produced.
B) The User/Dealer relationship is not one where you can start inquiring about the origins of the drug, for reasons which are again more linked to the criminality status. If it wasn't, you'd be able to have a fair and ethical market choice just like coffee.
C) Most drug users I've known are more sensitive to humanitarian issues than non-user, so I beleive they would refuse to purchase if they knew the drug was bloodied.
If they're doing cocaine, there's a better than average chance the drugs are bloodied.
The only way these people would have any escuse is if they've been totaly cut off from all sources of news for the past three decades.
Wyrmalla wrote: A lot of bad stuff happens in the world, if you stop to think about it you'll either kill yourself or go join the Peace Corps. I'm not saying don't deal with a problem, just that as soon as you solve it another one's going to turn up somewhere else. I don't advocate criminality, but its so much of a problem that I just try and avoid it. I suspect the guys who are doing it probably have a completely different mindset from us and don't care for the ethical issues that result from their actions. Hell if your a freedom fighter in a country who's just killed a local diplomat's children because he's killed yours who's the bad guy in that situation? If you kill a family to better your own life then there's a clear definition of who the bad guy is, but what if drugs are your only sustenance because the local mob or the like's taken the farm land from you? Its situational, morality's a throw away thing when it comes to human need. =P
People have to be willing to take a stand against the evils in this world or they will overtake us. Look at it this way, if the average drug user were presented with a situation where everytime he used drugs instead of people he doesn't know in another country, but someone he cared about would be killed in some unpleasant way or another,would the attraction to drugs be there?
I'm a secular humanist. I believe that bad things happen, but that's just how things are. Humanity does things that some would call bad, it does good things too, putting a name or morality to them's just you putting your own personal views to them. One person can think about a thing one way, and another theirs. I know people don't give a toss about how much harm their actions do to others. They don't have to be in a country on the other side of the world, they can be their neighbors for all it matters. If someone wants something most of the time they don't give a sod about how it effects others. So people can go about preaching what's write and wrong, but wait till a time of hardship or the like happens and see how soon it is before they're stabbing each other in the back. =P
That's a sad view of life you have, even though you do have some truth in what you say. I've had the privilage of working with people that help others and try to improve their standard of living, though, and realize it isn't as cut and dried as you make it. I believe there is a moral code to be followed and I do reject the blanket concept of things being relative.
By saying that there's so much bad going on in the world that we should just let it happen is like Churchill saying, "So much of Europe is over run already, we should just say quit and give up."
=P I do what I can to be a good person, but I don't live in a world where everybody acts the same as I do. I know that I can try and help a guy all I want and he could easily turn around and stab me in the back. That I'm comfortable with that idea and willing to just write that guy off is just how I deal with things. People can try and be as good as they want, but the world doesn't have a concept of morality, its just something that humans came up with. Everyone has their own interpretations of it, so it shouldn't news that others have ones that are radically different from yours. We in the west may think that slave labor is amoral, but go to Asia and see what they call it.
...Yeah, I've been advised to train as a counselor after Uni. The world's not black and white, but its nowhere near a spotless shade of grey either. =/
Mexican Marijuana is absolute crap. The only people who smoke that junk are too poor, or too stupid to buy better stuff.
From what I've heard, pot-smuggling isn't particularly profitable, especially not the low-grade stuff that's coming out of mexico. They jump through a lot of hoops and pay a lot of people off at the border just to get a cheap product to the masses. It makes me wonder why there's all this commotion and death surrounding something so... pedestrian. A 'drug war' of this scale usually has something to do with heroine, or maybe cocaine, but not marijuana.
Captain Fantastic wrote: Mexican Marijuana is absolute crap. The only people who smoke that junk are too poor, or too stupid to buy better stuff.
From what I've heard, pot-smuggling isn't particularly profitable, especially not the low-grade stuff that's coming out of mexico. They jump through a lot of hoops and pay a lot of people off at the border just to get a cheap product to the masses. It makes me wonder why there's all this commotion and death surrounding something so... pedestrian. A 'drug war' of this scale usually has something to do with heroine, or maybe cocaine, but not marijuana.
Just google anything to do with amounts of mexican pot smuggled and you'll see it's coming across up to 40 tons at a pop. There's definitely a lot of profit the cartels are getting off the stuff.
At least in the case of the UK we grow more of the drugs ourselves than import them. Admittedly its still the foreigners that suffer because of this though (its common for drug farms to be set up and having illegal immigrants tend them whilst they're effectively locked up with them). So I'm guessing that its a similar case with the US. The cheap stuff comes in from the south, but the expensive drugs are just so much easier to produce within the country and avoid the customs.
Hell in the Uk you'll find old women with skunk gardens in their greenhouses. They don't go to dealers for their stuff, they grow it themselves and pass it about in their coffee evenings.
Wyrmalla wrote: At least in the case of the UK we grow more of the drugs ourselves than import them. Admittedly its still the foreigners that suffer because of this though (its common for drug farms to be set up and having illegal immigrants tend them whilst they're effectively locked up with them). So I'm guessing that its a similar case with the US. The cheap stuff comes in from the south, but the expensive drugs are just so much easier to produce within the country and avoid the customs.
Hell in the Uk you'll find old women with skunk gardens in their greenhouses. They don't go to dealers for their stuff, they grow it themselves and pass it about in their coffee evenings.
You're right about producing drugs in country. This is why the cartels are more and more moving into the U.S.
Captain Fantastic wrote: Mexican Marijuana is absolute crap. The only people who smoke that junk are too poor, or too stupid to buy better stuff.
From what I've heard, pot-smuggling isn't particularly profitable, especially not the low-grade stuff that's coming out of mexico. They jump through a lot of hoops and pay a lot of people off at the border just to get a cheap product to the masses. It makes me wonder why there's all this commotion and death surrounding something so... pedestrian. A 'drug war' of this scale usually has something to do with heroine, or maybe cocaine, but not marijuana.
Just google anything to do with amounts of mexican pot smuggled and you'll see it's coming across up to 40 tons at a pop. There's definitely a lot of profit the cartels are getting off the stuff.
Border Patrol routinely stops people entering Mexico with hundreds of thousands of dollars in Drug Money. And I garuntee they are stopping only a small portion of the people getting accross. Plus alot of money gets spent in the US to buy other things(like guns)
Yes. Yes they do. The adult thing would be to admit it to yourself, and subsequently, that you don't care.
Yes, exactly that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Saying American drug users are responsible for crime in other countries is just dumb. Are you responsible for Chinese slave labor with all your Iphones? Are you responsible for children in sweatshops because you just had to get another pair of Nikes?
Umm... you're missing the big, obvious answer to your conundrum... that the person who buys an i-phone knowing the conditions in which it was manufactured is partially responsible for that situation, in exactly the same way that the drug user is responsible.
I mean, you reasoning above basically says 'I say no cow was killed to bring me this steak. You're eating venison and that comes from deer, therefore neither of us did anything wrong.'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DutchKillsRambo wrote: I guess it all comes down to personal views. To me a few thousand deaths isnt worse than a couple hundred million in slave labor.
Maybe the quote "judge not lest ye be judged" would fit this situation?
If the issue was people condemning others and doing nothing else, that'd work. But no-one is calling for the stoning of anyone else over this.
This is really about discussing the issue, and maybe discussing what might be done to improve the situation. For instance, here in WA bushie dope is almost entirely controlled by the bikie gangs, but the hydro stuff is still largely coming from small attic operations (although that's slowly changing). By being aware of that, a person could try to only buy hydro and avoid financing the bikies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: I'm a secular humanist. I believe that bad things happen, but that's just how things are.
I'm not sure that makes you a secular humanist. Secular humanism generally searches for universal moral codes.
Honestly, that's one of the problems I have with secular humanism. I tend towards a view much more like yours, that different people will have very different views of morality.
