26-02-2002 23:54									#1
	Anti-drug war advert Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0203/drugad.html

I put in my 25 dollars to help make it possible. I was curious what other people think.

Sorry if this thread has already been posted, but sadly I have things to do other than cruise the forums 24/7.

	26-02-2002 23:57									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

17,000%? that seems a bit high.

I'm all for shaking things up though.

who said libertarians aren't our friends?

I should mention that I don't support legalization. Americans are stupid creatures. And it is the goverments responsibility to protect them. We need them to work the menial jobs to keep this country strong.

	27-02-2002 00:22									#3
	Remove this text

Looking at this from the individual perspective.....

If I am an ordinary citizen and the money I use on products (drugs or other illegal stuff) is funding terrorism, should I:

A) Point the finger at someone else and say "Well I would have only bought the terrorists 2 car bombs with the money I gave them, but since the government has their stupid war on drugs, I had to give them enough money for them to buy 10 car bombs. Therefore, I am only responsible for 2 car bombs and the deaths it causes and the government is responsible for the other 8."

or

B) Boycott products that are illegal and only profit criminals and terrorists.

I'm all for freedoms and all, but is getting lit once and awhile (possibly) worth putting a gun in a bad dudes hands? If drug users were the discrimnate type and had some sort of clue where their dealer got their product , then perhaps less potential harm would be done. But drug addicts aren't discrimate for the most part. They'd buy drugs from Osama Bin Laden. Anything for a score.

Bottom line is, maybe the government is making drugs more expensive for the consumers and therefore making dealers more money. But if their was no need for product, no buyers, the dealers wouldn't make a cent. So is indulging ones self worth possibly funding terrorism?

I would like to think not.........

*cue regurgitated, predictable libertarian speech about how all drugs should be legalized and therfore create no need for a black market....."

	27-02-2002 00:28									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

Around here kind bud goes for about 20 dollars a gram. Gold is sold at about 300 dollars an ounce, so a little quick math tells us that high quality weed costs about 75% more than gold does by mass. And since weed basically grows just straight out of the ground while gold has to be mined and whatnot, it seems pretty clear that the price of marijuana is grossly inflated.

Keep in mind, that's only cannibis, and most kind bud sold around here is either grown in the US or Canada. Drugs like cocaine and heroin have even more inflated prices because of smuggling costs.

	27-02-2002 00:36									#5
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

As far as legalization goes, keep in mind that most drugs today were once sold openly and profited only the legitimate drug companies or whoever was growing it.

Heroin was made by Bayer, Ecstasy was a Merck product, I don't know who produced cocaine, but Sigmund Freud used to both indulge and perscribe it to his patients.

Back in those days, FARC and al Qaeda weren't able to fund themselves from drug sales. The money was going where it belonged, to legitimate corporate pirates and robber barons.

Now as far as you talk about getting a hit and giving money to terrorists. Keep in mind that most drug users in the US and Canada, and the majority of those arrested, use marijuana, which is almost exclusively grown domestically. Now maybe you are privy to information that I am unaware of, perhaps that horribly violent British Columbian branch of the AUC is bombing courthouses with funds from cannibis sales, but to the best of my understanding most Yanks and Canucks who sell weed do it because they want to smoke their profits up, and to make a little spending money. Certainly the federal government shouldn't compare marijuana to cocaine and heroin which actually do contribute to terrorist organizations.

	27-02-2002 00:47									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Let me just say, I don't blame drugs themselves. Drugs aren't inherently evil or anything of the sort. I don't look down upon someone because they like to smoke up once and awhile. Not a big deal. I'm just explaining how I feel the logic used in the ad is incorrect.

Drugs are illegal. Lets not debate why they should and shouldnt be. They are. MJ will probably legalized at some point, but not any time soon. Others never will. Lets accept this fact first of all.

This means, that as long as there is a desire for people to buy illegal substances, there will always be a black market. Always a supply to meet the demand. Terrorists will continue to make money off of people and use it to kill people whether the drug war continues or not.

The price of the product is irrelevent, as people will pay almost anything for drugs as shown by your kind bud example. Paying 20 bucks a gram is insane, but yet people still do it don't they? So why point the finger at the government? They arent the ones (necessarily ) buying the drugs...the people are. How much it costs doesn't mean a thing. Nothing at all. No one forced a drug user to buy drug.

Knowlingly contributing to a terrorists wallet in any way, even if it is a dime would make me un-comfortable...would it make you un-comfortable? Never thought about it before right? Well thats what that ad campaign was for...to give drug users a little something to think about.

If I made a terrorists life easier, even a tiny bit, I think I would feel pretty lousy. I might be 99% sure my dealer is just a local nobody and has no ties to anything really nasty, but that 1% of uncertainty might be enough to make someone think twice. Or would it? Is someone's selfish indulgence more important than anothers life? Some no doubt think so.

People bankroll all sorts of crime families and organized criminals when they buy drugs. They willingly give money to people who murder others to maintain their positions. This has never been disputed, so why are we disputing the same thing when it comes to terrorism? How is it different??

There is none. Just that terrorism is the hot button right now and the word most likely to hit home at this point in time.

	27-02-2002 00:56									#7
	Tired of ads?

quote: Now as far as you talk about getting a hit and giving money to terrorists. Keep in mind that most drug users in the US and Canada, and the majority of those arrested, use marijuana, which is almost exclusively grown domestically. Now maybe you are privy to information that I am unaware of, perhaps that horribly violent British Columbian branch of the AUC is bombing courthouses with funds from cannibis sales, but to the best of my understanding most Yanks and Canucks who sell weed do it because they want to smoke their profits up, and to make a little spending money. Certainly the federal government shouldn't compare marijuana to cocaine and heroin which actually do contribute to terrorist organizations.

I won't dispute any of this. And certainly there is a big difference between weed and coke for instance. But until weed is legalized it will get lumped into the same category as other drugs, fair or not.

If the people that use mj take offense to being labeled as terrorist supporters, I can understand that. But as I pointed out before, it may not be Osama youre giving youre money to, but more than likely its to someone you wouldnt want to invite over to moms for dinner. When you buy drugs, fair or not, youre buying drugs from a criminal. You are supporting a criminal (by existing laws). You might have just given him that last 100 bucks he needs for that new shotgun that he will later use to kill a competitor.

Wouldn't it just be easier to not buy drugs at all and live with a clear conscience?

For example, a great solution as I'm sure has been proposed millions of time before, is to allow people to grow their own dope, for their private personal use, and personal use only. Hell even distributing your own stash to friends and family wouldnt make me at all un-comfortable, as you know where and who its coming from.

	27-02-2002 00:58									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I see where you're coming from here Drake, I just think that the best solution to the problem is to eliminate the artificial pricing structures. Organized crime used to be funded by alcohol sales, but when Prohibition ended that source dried up.

Now assume that 90% of drug users decide suddenly to stop using drugs because of the ONDCP ads. Although this is a rediculously unlikely event, it still wouldn't solve the inherent problem: 10% of the users are still using, and if they consume opiates or cocaine their money is still going to terrorists.

However, if drugs are legalized, zero dollars goes to the terrorists. Also there are funds and resources used to enforce drug laws, that would be better spent on actual crimes. It's all a question of what's good for our country, and for the people. The drug war is bad for us.

	27-02-2002 01:34									#9
	Suffering from ads?

Define "actual crime". Selling addictive drugs to children is a crime if you'd ask me. Charging 200 bucks for a gram of organic material sure sounds like robbery =)

Lets be realistic here. Don't turn into a space cadet. Weed will probably be legalized someday, but no hard drugs ever will. So why even suggest it? Might as well suggest legalizing murder since it's about as likely to happen.

	27-02-2002 01:35									#10
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Boycott products that are illegal and only profit criminals

Don't they by definition only profit criminals?

quote: and terrorists.

There are terrorists who make money on a variety of products from petroleum to rice, if not by selling them, by taxing them. Should we boycott these?

	27-02-2002 01:39									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Drake--

Terrorists make far, far, FAR more money from oil and gems (especially diamonds) than they do from drugs, especially marijuana, which they don't make one red cent off of. The terrorists these adds talk about are the factions in Columbia; Al Queda isn't getting their funding through the American drug trade. Hell, they got more money from the American government than they did from drugs; should we create an advertisement than says "Paying your taxes funds terrorists"?

	27-02-2002 01:40									#12
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: This means, that as long as there is a desire for people to buy illegal substances, there will always be a black market. Always a supply to meet the demand. Terrorists will continue to make money off of people and use it to kill people whether the drug war continues or not.

Then the terrorists will continue to make money off of it. As long as the government doesn't believe that it's restrictions and making drugs into a black market are the reason the terrorists are being funding then nothing can be done.

After all, during prohibition, the selling of alcohol was benefiting the mob (the original domestic terrorists). Who was at fault for funding the mob? The people who wanted the alcohol and payed high prices for it, or the government for banning the substances. It is interesting how the mob never had as much power as they did during prohibition. That tells you something.

So no, I don't blame the drug users. I put full blame on the government. The terrorists are being smart and using the black market to their advantage.

--

And Ramo is correct. Terrorists sell oil to fund their efforts as well. That tank you are filling up tomorrow might lead to Hezbollah gaining more money for weapons. Will you stop doing that then?

	27-02-2002 01:41									#13
	Tired of ads?

Thank you for pointing out that you have a superior intellect ramo, it is appreciated

quote: There are terrorists who make money on a variety of products from petroleum to rice, if not by selling them, by taxing them. Should we boycott these?

Of course. Unless you believe in terrorism. If a company is known to use shady practices, like having 5 year old kids work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop to creat huge profits, and you don't believe with this practice, and yet you still buy from them, you are a hypocrite. If you don't follow your so called values, then they are worthless. If I knew Osama Inc. was using Kraft foods (for an example) as a front for bankrolling terrorism, I think I'd probably not buy my cheese from Kraft. What do you think you'd do???

A consumer should atleast be semi-educated as to where the products they buy come from.

	27-02-2002 01:49									#14
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I would like to point out that drugs *gasp* have harmful effects. I know, I know, you just can't believe it, but it's true. As such the government tries to protect it's citizens.

Now, onto drug legalization would drive down prices. OK, say you sell this super fuel. Now, this fuel is illegal right now. OK, you sell it at a huge markup. Finally, everyone sees the light and it's legal. Would you reduce your price if you knew that there were enough people willing to buy it at the marked up price to make you rich? Better yet, if your product was severely addictive?

	27-02-2002 01:52									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone I would like to point out that drugs *gasp* have harmful effects. I know, I know, you just can't believe it, but it's true. As such the government tries to protect it's citizens.

So does alcohol. Cigarettes.
I don't like the government playing Big Brother.
I'll use what I want to use, thank you.
In fact it's being used whether the government wants me to or not. Oh well, less taxation available for them.

quote: Now, onto drug legalization would drive down prices. OK, say you sell this super fuel. Now, this fuel is illegal right now. OK, you sell it at a huge markup. Finally, everyone sees the light and it's legal. Would you reduce your price if you knew that there were enough people willing to buy it at the marked up price to make you rich? Better yet, if your product was severely addictive?

Your point fails on the basic principles of supply and demand. If it's legal, more people will supply it and I doubt demand would go up that much. The people who already use it will keep using it, those who don't probably won't. Prices will probably drop.

	27-02-2002 01:55									#16
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Drake, most drug users don't get their drugs from the AUC, et al. What drug users do is buy their drugs from the guy down the street, increasing the demand, indirectly insuring people like Binny get more supplies. What you're suggesting is to stop buying drugs from the guy down the street because he's in the same business as terrorists.

Something analagous would be to stop using all cheese because Osama runs Kraft.

	27-02-2002 01:56									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Funneling money to terrorism is in place in all sorts of legitimate businesses. There certainly isn't a failsafe way for consumers to know exactly where the dollar they spent on gas is going. Hell it's impossible.

But in buying drugs, the line is a little clearer. The buyer knows the dealer is a criminal right off the bat. They know that they have a disregard for the law. The chances of an oil provider being linked to terrorism are probably not as good as the chances that a drug dealer are.

It comes down to this. Criminals corrupt this country and when you buy drugs, you are, in your own little way, helping to corrupt the country. You are legitimizing criminal actions.

So Imran, lets say there is no drug war. The inflated prices the poor addicts have to pay now are lowered. The rate for a bag of coke is 100 bucks instead of 1000. So instead of 1000 dollars going to the terrorist, only 100 is going. It will take the terrorist 10x more product to buy that explosive material. In the end, the terrorist can't afford as much explosives as he wanted to, so he can only kill 10 jews instead of 100. Now, will knowing that the buyers "saved" 90 people help their conscience? After all, 10 jews isn't really that many. One has to be able to get high and have fun after all right?

Pointing the finger at someone else is the typical selfish american thing to do. Never taking responsibility for anything.

	27-02-2002 02:01									#18
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Of course. Unless you believe in terrorism. If a company is known to use shady practices, like having 5 year old kids work 14 hours a day in a sweatshop to creat huge profits, and you don't believe with this practice, and yet you still buy from them, you are a hypocrite.

No, you are a capitalist .

quote: It comes down to this. Criminals corrupt this country and when you buy drugs, you are, in your own little way, helping to corrupt the country. You are legitimizing criminal actions.

If you don't believe the action should be criminal then you are making a political statement .

quote: So Imran, lets say there is no drug war. The inflated prices the poor addicts have to pay now are lowered. The rate for a bag of coke is 100 bucks instead of 1000. So instead of 1000 dollars going to the terrorist, only 100 is going. It will take the terrorist 10x more product to buy that explosive material. In the end, the terrorist can't afford as much explosives as he wanted to, so he can only kill 10 jews instead of 100. Now, will knowing that the buyers "saved" 90 people help their conscience? After all, 10 jews isn't really that many. One has to be able to get high and have fun after all right?

You have failed economics, haven't you? If the drug is legal, and price falls, then there is no oppertunity for terrorist groups to make money. Since the drug is legal, companies will go through legal ways to get the drug. The terrorists can't take advantage of the fact that there is an artifical lowering supply by the government. Then, you'll see Merck (or whoever) going into these areas themselves and collecting the substance for themselves.

The only reason terrorists deal in this trade is because of the illegality of it. They can be one of the only suppliers in the market, giving them high profits. If the market was opened, the terrorists would be forced from business.

	27-02-2002 02:06									#19
	Support Apolyton

quote: Something analagous would be to stop using all cheese because Osama runs Kraft.

If I knew all cheese was linked to terrorism I'd certainly quit buying it. When someone buys a hard drug (as pointed out, most likely not dope), they should consciously be aware that their money isn't going to the special olympics fund. They shouldn't be so naive and careless. It shows a good deal of disregard for others. Selfishness is a trait that is probably pretty common among addicts, so it's certainly not surprising.

	27-02-2002 02:08									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

ad hominem attacks don't make your argument, drake.

	27-02-2002 02:11									#21
	Got spare money?

Petroleum is clearly linked to terrorism.

Do you run an electric car? Or are you a hypocrite?

	27-02-2002 02:13									#22
	Support Apolyton

Who then will take responsibility for the actions of those who are high? The ones that become violent when high? The ones that harm themselves and especially the ones that harm others?

Personally, I think that alcohol should be regulated. WRT to tobaccoo, I have never heard of a person harming another person while smoking. Not that I'm gleeful about it, but I figure smoker's are just killing themselves (I know about second hand smoke, but believe me when I say that nowadays the only reason you are near a smoker is because you have a good reason).

	27-02-2002 02:15									#23
	Remove this text

quote: If I knew all cheese was linked to terrorism I'd certainly quit buying it.

All cheese? Can you back up the assertion that all hard drugs are linked to terrorism?

	27-02-2002 02:15									#24
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

BTW, is it that easy to get drugs that even if you just wanted to experiment but were fearful of getting caught, you would have an easy time getting any drug you wanted?

Sorry, but the more accesible something is the more it becomes acceptable, and the more people use it.

	27-02-2002 02:17									#25
	And now, for a dissenting opinion... Increase Your PM Length

Once again the LP aggressively campaigns on a non-winning issue. Why don't they do this for things that matter to people other than the young - like Social Security reform/privatization, tax reform, hell, even zoning law reform would get them more votes. But no, they waste time, effort, and press to try to convince America's parents that it is ok for little Johnny and Jane to legally buy heroin.

Gah! It's enough to make me retch!

	27-02-2002 02:18									#26
	Increase the size of your Attachments

whether it is legal or illegal in the U.S. doesn't change the fact that opium is a major resource of Afghanistant. So terrorists will profit from it if it is legal or illegal in the U.S. Just not as much.

The same can be said for Columbia. The fact that it is illegal doesn't change the fact that these countries have ideal environmental conditions for producing these drugs.

So the way to correct that would be to fix Columbia's and Afghanistan's goverments. The drug would have to be legal to produce in those countries. And corruption that spill money to terrorists would have to be virtually eliminated.

	27-02-2002 02:20									#27
	Remove this text

I was using the presumption that coke would never be legal (as it won't). I was talking about the war on drugs being cut down, going back down to pre-drug war levels. (Therefore pressure on dealers and suppliers eases up and the cost of importing drugs into a country are significantly lowered). If it's easy to bring drugs into the country (as it was in the past), the cost will go down presumably. (Get it?)

We were playing a little hypothetical game, and you failed to play Imran. I was just asking, if you knew (hypothetically now) that your money helped kill even one person, would that be ok? (It's ok, it's a hypothetical question!) Would you continue supporting your indulgence even though you knew others could die at your expense?

So why don't you play this time, and the person you try playing is someone who cares about other things than themselves. (I know it's a strecth but you can do it Imran, I have faith )

	27-02-2002 02:21									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Who then will take responsibility for the actions of those who are high? The ones that become violent when high? The ones that harm themselves

Which is their own free choice. They could do as much by dropping a brick on their feet.

quote: and especially the ones that harm others?

Ever hear of a prison?

quote: (I know about second hand smoke, but believe me when I say that nowadays the only reason you are near a smoker is because you have a good reason).

???

quote: BTW, is it that easy to get drugs that even if you just wanted to experiment but were fearful of getting caught, you would have an easy time getting any drug you wanted? Sorry, but the more accesible something is the more it becomes acceptable, and the more people use it.

Alcohol usage substancially decreased after Prohibition ended.

	27-02-2002 02:23									#29
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I doubt alcohol usage has decreased. Even if that is per capita. But in any case the population has increased, and so has binge drinking.

	27-02-2002 02:26									#30
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: I doubt alcohol usage has decreased. Even if that is per capita. But in any case the population has increased, and so has binge drinking.

In years directly following the repeal of Prohibition the rate of alcohol usage went way down. I don't know the alcohol statistics about today, but they aren't particularly relevant anyways.