Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There are people who pride themselves on being socially responsible drug users. I've seen a girl tell a guy off because he didn't know where he his weed came from, while hers came from a local grower that wasn't attached to any criminal group, and was a sustainable operation. I have no fething clue how a weed plantation gets environmentally vetted for sustainability, but she was pretty adamant.

 sebster wrote:
There are people who pride themselves on being socially responsible drug users. I've seen a girl tell a guy off because he didn't know where he his weed came from, while hers came from a local grower that wasn't attached to any criminal group, and was a sustainable operation. I have no fething clue how a weed plantation gets environmentally vetted for sustainability, but she was pretty adamant.

Obviously there are people who grow their own, or people who buy from people who grow their own who are not funding the cartels with their purchases. However, there are still enough people who buy from cartel sources (knowingly or not) for the cartels to make large amounts of money.

 Hordini wrote:
Obviously there are people who grow their own, or people who buy from people who grow their own who are not funding the cartels with their purchases. However, there are still enough people who buy from cartel sources (knowingly or not) for the cartels to make large amounts of money.

Sure thing. I'm not saying otherwise. In fact, that the existance of socially conscious drug users can be debated at all kind of proves that they're a minority.

I just gave my anecdote because I found it really funny at the time. Both because it's kind of life flipped on its head, the lecture isn't from a Prius driver but a pothead, and because of the insistance that the plantation was environmentally responsible (how would you know, are their best practice guidelines to meet? is the industry self regulating with an appointed committee, or does government come by to make sure your illegal grow operation meets sustainability requirements?)

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm pointing out that if Relapse wants to throw stones, he should make sure that he himself is without sin first. And doesn't live in a glass house. And isn't a black kettle. Etc.

I'm still interested in getting you to address the cognitive dissonance that it requires to claim in this thread, as you did earlier, that legalization of drugs would cause cartel violence to drop almost immediately, while refusing to admit that people who purchase illegal drugs are actively funding said cartel violence.

There is no cognitive dissonance required, as the underlined claim has never once been made by me. Go on. Try to find a quote. I dare you. (however I will at this juncture point out that drug users are only tacitly responsible for funding cartel violence; if there were actively responsible then they'd be writing cheques of "cost of one RPG, sincerely, white kid with dreadlocks". So be careful about how you move those goalposts.) Anyway, it seems as though you have unfortunately fallen victim to a strawman. My actual argument is quite simple, as follows:

1. I dislike hypocrites.

2. Relapse made a moral judgement on drug users based on their funding of cartels, and the violence the cartels cause.

3. I pointed out to Relapse that unless he is socially conscious enough to ensure his own consumer purchases have not funded terror and murder, he should not attempt to pass judgement.

-End of argument-

Of course narcotics purchases go towards cartels and indirectly cause much of the violence associated with their business. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves, crazy or grossly misinformed. But you've got to be a world-class donkey-cave to stand in judgement of a drug user for that reason while sipping a coke (for one example).

Relapse wrote:

Some of the posters here can put up straw men by pretending giving money to the cartels is no worse than buying a soft drink or some such nonsense, but the fact remains that most drug users don't care anyway.

Funny you should mention that.

 sebster wrote:
There are people who pride themselves on being socially responsible drug users. I've seen a girl tell a guy off because he didn't know where he his weed came from, while hers came from a local grower that wasn't attached to any criminal group, and was a sustainable operation. I have no fething clue how a weed plantation gets environmentally vetted for sustainability, but she was pretty adamant.

So she's a socially conscious idiot. Got it. Meanwhile, in the US, many domestic growers have been replaced by dumping. Other fields have been set up here that are run by the cartels. You don't compete because they kill you.

Other Cartel cash flows:
*Human trafficing.
*Racqueteering and prostitution.
*Control of legimitate businesses.

The difference between them and Mario Puzo's mob activities of course is that the cartels have thousands of troops.

So, what are we arguing about here?

All I know is that telling people to not use drugs for the past 30+ years, and trying to shame the people who do use drugs; doesn't seem to have stopped people from buying drugs.

Therefore, if your solution to Drugs and its related problems is to tell people to stop buying/using drugs, you must be willfully living in a fantasy world. We have plenty of proof that this idea does not work.

E is right. I suggest a new tactic.

Mass executions and park tanks on the southern border with heat sensors. Kill any one who crosses, find the tunnels and bomb them into next tuesday. Tell the Mexican government they have six months to clean up their mess or the air strikes start.

 Easy E wrote:
So, what are we arguing about here?

All I know is that telling people to not use drugs for the past 30+ years, and trying to shame the people who do use drugs; doesn't seem to have stopped people from buying drugs.

Therefore, if your solution to Drugs and its related problems is to tell people to stop buying/using drugs, you must be willfully living in a fantasy world. We have plenty of proof that this idea does not work.

Agreed. Go big (executions for anyone even remotely incolved in the sale, transport, finance, or imbibing of illegal narcotics) or go home (legal, regulated and taxes baby!).
As a Libertarian Herald of the Great Wienie, I vote 'go home."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
E is right. I suggest a new tactic.

Mass executions and park tanks on the southern border with heat sensors. Kill any one who crosses, find the tunnels and bomb them into next tuesday. Tell the Mexican government they have six months to clean up their mess or the air strikes start.

Don't forget we need to station sharks with frigging laser beams in the coastal waters to prevent drug boats/sub.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
E is right. I suggest a new tactic.

Mass executions and park tanks on the southern border with heat sensors. Kill any one who crosses, find the tunnels and bomb them into next tuesday. Tell the Mexican government they have six months to clean up their mess or the air strikes start.

Well, at least your idea is innovative.

Of course, we will have to keep doing it for 25 years to see if it works.

 Frazzled wrote:

 sebster wrote:
There are people who pride themselves on being socially responsible drug users. I've seen a girl tell a guy off because he didn't know where he his weed came from, while hers came from a local grower that wasn't attached to any criminal group, and was a sustainable operation. I have no fething clue how a weed plantation gets environmentally vetted for sustainability, but she was pretty adamant.

So she's a socially conscious idiot. Got it. Meanwhile, in the US, many domestic growers have been replaced by dumping. Other fields have been set up here that are run by the cartels. You don't compete because they kill you.

Other Cartel cash flows:
*Human trafficing.
*Racqueteering and prostitution.
*Control of legimitate businesses.

The difference between them and Mario Puzo's mob activities of course is that the cartels have thousands of troops.

Human trafficking is a huge issue in Mexico. To cut off that fund would be the hardest, because it is so wide spread. The cartel unforunately are smart enough to run legal establishments,

At least people are taking it into their own hands. The only problem i see with this is more senseless bloodshed as the cartels probably will try to aim for the people, or possibly more civilian deaths.

Mexico's a mess, glad to know dakka dakka is informed on the issue unlike many of my peers.

 Frazzled wrote:
The difference between them and Mario Puzo's mob activities of course is that the cartels have thousands of troops.

And none of it ends up with Sophia Coppola getting shot. Which is why Mexican mobs will never be as fun as Italian mobs.

Sebster makes a good point.