 |
| |
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
JohnT - quote:
Berzerker, even a cursory reading of my post makes it clear that I'm pissed about the LP once again making political waves on an issue that WILL NOT AND NEVER WILL garner them anywhere near enough votes to make them an effective and viable third party. |
I did read your posts, are you suggesting otherwise? Then offer an example of me mis-quoting your posts. What is the LP supposed to do? Tell voters they support the drug war? Or tell voters they oppose it after the election? The fact demagogues can create strawmen to make you look bad doesn't mean you join the crowd and put millions in cages so you can appear to be in touch with the masses.
quote:
*JohnT waits for the list (or maybe just a tally) of local LPers who've won elections.* |
They've won more than any other 3rd parties.
quote:
They're still losing in case you haven't noticed. Hell, any half-baked third party (Reform, Green) gets far more notice than the "true" third party, and that is just a fact. |
And you think this is because of the drug war? Try the leftist media and government opposition to allowing non-Republicrats access to the voters. As long as so many people want "government" taking care of them, we'll be stuck with statist policies. The LP has gotten more libertarians into office than all other 3rd parties combined.
Dinodoc - quote:
Has anyone asked about how we'd prevent another round of annoying tobacco lawsuits? Would we have to grant the companies that produce them immunity from such suits? |
The tobacco lawsuits were driven by the deception of tobacco companies over the last few decades. This is why we haven't seen a flurry of alcohol suits, plaintiffs can't go into court and accuse alcohol companies of lying about their product.
MacTBone - quote:
Oh, BTW, the US government already protects us in many ways, include the FDA. Are you suggesting that since we have an established body, that covers all drug issues, and safety concerns, that they don't know what they're talking about when they ban the drugs that are considered illegal? |
The FDA is a political body that depends on the approval of politicians. The FDA has already approved a synthetic based on marijuana called "Marinol", that is an admission that marijuana has medicinal properties. It wasn't the FDA that made pot or cocaine illegal, it was legislation by politicians. And in the case of marijuana, this legislation was passed inspite of the AMA's opposition. You think the FDA knows more than the AMA? And if you want government protecting you from your own decisions, then don't complain when other people use the monster you helped create to run your life.
quote:
I guess I don't understand how the FDA could help keep drugs safe to use, if we took all their power away. Every pharmaceutical company in the world would have a field day. |
Are there any safe drugs? Even aspirin kills people! If the FDA was limited to being an advisory committee, they would "protect" you from yourself by offering knowledge, not the point of a gun. People who fear pharmaceuticals, not an irrational fear, can wait for the FDA to give it's seal of safety while letting the rest of us who don't or can't afford to wait free to make our own decisions. It is immoral for you, me, or the FDA to stop dying people from taking a medicine that might help them. When we do that, we become murderers.
Ramo - quote:
Drug legalization is about justice, not some inconsequential philosophical nit-picking. |
Political expedience seems to be more important than justice.
quote:
The public doesn't like it? So what? That's why the LP is putting so much energy into the pro-legalization campaign. Hopefully these campaigns are changing minds.
The moment that the LP forsakes its committment to political liberty for the sake of votes and campaign contributions is the moment that the LP loses all the support it has from me. |
When this happens, the LP is no different than the Republicrats.
Drake - quote:
Alright....everyone keeps saying petroleum is used as a source for terrorist incomes.....I'm not saying it isn't. Does anyone have some good evidence to back up this claim or is just an assumption?
Just because oil comes from the middle east doesnt automatically mean the money is going to terrorism. There are legitimate middle easter companies aren't there(or are they all terrorists over there)? |
The Saudis funded OBL and the Taliban. Where do you think they got the money?
quote:
Society lives with rules....it has to to function....now it's all good and well to have your own (I'm a unique snowflake!) ideas. One should. But until the day comes when the majority agrees with you, you're going to have to abide by the rules society sets |
The US was never meant to be a democracy. We were meant to have a small government limited to helping us protect our freedom, not rule over us.
quote:
How do drugs that do nothing but destroy peoples minds and lives factor into the pursuit of happiness and liberty? |
Since when do drugs destroy minds? The abuse of some can have detrimental effects, but that isn't the same as the recreational use of a drug. As for your scenario, what would you do in the absence of government? Would you put your brother in a cage for a few years until you've decided he's learned to take better care of himself?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mactbone
|
 |
Lift Your Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
Sep 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
It is immoral for you, me, or the FDA to stop dying people from taking a medicine that might help them. When we do that, we become murderers. |
Well, know that's odd, I've never heard of marijuana saving someone's life... come to think of it, I don't think that ecstacy, heroin, or cocaine have ever literally saved someone's life. I know that they may have soothed a patient, but that's not a direct link.
I also have to question your continuing thinking that drugs that are illegal are all "recreational". There are many drugs that the FDA won't approve because of harmful side effects. Not only that, those "recreational" drugs, in almost all cases have a direct link to harming people. What you're effectively saying, is that we should all be given loaded guns, and if we fail to read the warnings, and instructions, it's our responsibility when we shoot ourselves. Well, how do we decide if a warning is strong enough? Or if instructions are clear enough? What if we think they work, but then find out that many people end up killing themselves, do we just ignore them?
Prevention. That is why drugs are illegal. Not because some senator was a stick-in-the-mud.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
--".but since it is one of the most irresponsible in the history of the world, I fail to see the good in enabling society to **** itself up even more than it already is."
Things like the War on Drugs have played a very large part in making US society so irresponsible. By promising to protect and coddle its citizens like little babies, it has been turning them into the spoiled brats you'd expect.
Let people take responsibility for their own actions for a change.
--"Has anyone asked about how we'd prevent another round of annoying tobacco lawsuits?"
Tort reform. Desperately needed, but it'll put a lot of lawyers out of work...
--"Would the FDA still test chemicals and drugs?"
As long as they limit themselves to testing and advising. When they get into banning I have a problem.
--"Would there be an age limit?"
I don't see why it would be treated any different than alcohol. I really don't think there should be age limits, however. Alcoholism isn't a major problem in the countries that aren't as strict about this as the US is.
This is the point I made up above.
--"Who can sell the stuff?"
Why shouldn't it be anyone? You can still buy cigarettes from vending machines. There are a lot more harmful things sold in supermarkets and department stores.
--"Will prices be regulated"
No, but I'd be surprised if they didn't get heavily taxed really quickly. Government is like that. If I had my preferences, though, there wouldn't be any of that either.
--"Would the government repeal laws concerning drugs in the workplace"
Ideally, yes. That sort of stuff belongs in the work contracts. No employer is going to want his employees high on the job, so it's not like crack-heads at work is ever going to be any more of an issue than it is now.
Edit: (added response)
--"What you're effectively saying, is that we should all be given loaded guns"
No, we're saying you should be allowed to buy loaded guns if you want to. It's not your body they're damaging, so what's your problem? Some people like to do marathons, and running is really bad for your knees. Guess we better ban them too, right?
Look, government's job is not to attempt to protect people from themselves. If you want to hammer your hand to the wall, it's not the government's job to stop you, or to pry out the nail when you figure out it hurts.
Wraith
Reality Sector Visitor Badge #9572
Last edited by Wraith on 28-02-2002 at 06:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MacTBone
Oh, you mean Glaucoma, which AFAIK, there are other ways to treat. |
Marijuana is the cheapest way though.
Here's some other uses for the stuff:
Cancer. Marijuana can stimulate the appetite and alleviate nausea and vomiting, which are common side effects of chemotherapy treatment.
Multiple Sclerosis. Marijuana can limit the muscle pain and spasticity caused by the disease, as well as relieving tremor and unsteadiness of gait. (Multiple sclerosis is the leading cause of neurological disability among young and middle-aged adults in the United States.)
Epilepsy. Marijuana can prevent epileptic seizures in some patients.
Chronic Pain. Marijuana can alleviate the chronic, often debilitating pain caused by myriad disorders and injuries.
Here's a link for you to look at: http://bob.nap.edu/books/0309071550/html/
Last edited by DinoDoc on 28-02-2002 at 06:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
MacTBone - quote:
Dino - I'll admit that it has good effects, but there's a reason why it isn't prescribed to anyone who wants it. There are side effects, and they are harmful. |
That reason is it's illegal! And virtually everything has harmful side effects. But of all the medicines, marijuana is among the most benign. People have died from aspirin, not from pot.
quote:
Well, know that's odd, I've never heard of marijuana saving someone's life... |
I was talking about all drugs, or do you think the FDA only concerns itself with pot? 
quote:
come to think of it, I don't think that ecstacy, heroin, or cocaine have ever literally saved someone's life. I know that they may have soothed a patient, but that's not a direct link. |
The people who are pushing for doctor assisted suicide use the fact people in alot of pain are being under medicated because doctors are afraid of the DEA coming down on them. Heroin/morphine is about the best pain reliever there is, but if you can't get it even though it's legal when administered by a doctor, death becomes a viable alternative. But I'm not sure why your standard now is life saving and doesn't include other factors involving quality of life. If you have AIDS and are suffering from the "wasting" syndrome, pot can save your life by stimulating appetite.
quote:
I also have to question your continuing thinking that drugs that are illegal are all "recreational". There are many drugs that the FDA won't approve because of harmful side effects. |
And they shouldn't be doing this either, but pot's side effects are minimal.
quote:
Not only that, those "recreational" drugs, in almost all cases have a direct link to harming people. |
Some do, some don't. So what? You can drop a brick on your head, that doesn't mean handling bricks should be illegal.
quote:
What you're effectively saying, is that we should all be given loaded guns, and if we fail to read the warnings, and instructions, it's our responsibility when we shoot ourselves. |
If you buy the gun and shoot yourself, oh well. Are you now for banning guns because they can be deadly?
quote:
Well, how do we decide if a warning is strong enough? Or if instructions are clear enough? |
If you can't read english, maybe you shouldn't ingest unknown substances.
quote:
What if we think they work, but then find out that many people end up killing themselves, do we just ignore them? |
Then we do what we do with any product, sue.
quote:
Prevention. That is why drugs are illegal. Not because some senator was a stick-in-the-mud. |
Then you shouldn't complain when "government" runs your entire life because your diet, exercise routine, and sleep habits, etc., might be harmful.
Dinodoc - quote:
What deception? They've had a warning label on thier products for decades calling the stuff poison. |
The tobacco companies have been lying about their products for decades, it was these lies that lawyers used to get settlements. The fact the government started requiring labels more recently didn't help since many smokers started long before the warnings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Killerdaffy
It is well documented in the press (and even by Hollywood : "Rambo III")that the Afghanistani Mujaheddin fighting the Russians in the 80s were funded mostly by the US government. You know any other places where they produce the Stinger missiles so feared by the Russian helicopter pilots in significant numbers? The Taliban and al-Quaeda emerged later from the infighting between the different factions after the Russians left, only taking over the country in 1994.
Anyway, it's not the first time the US funded countries/organizations/regimes that later turned against them. Saddam got money to fight the evil Iranians, who just happen to be the only foreign country to fly F14s. That's why they stopped using war elephants sometime in the 2nd century BC: They certainly do a lot of damage to your enemies when storming in the right direction but the direction turned out to be hard to control.
Maybe some future president will see the light. |
The Mujaheddin were funded mostly by contributions of friendly Arab and Muslim governments and individuals. The U.S. did provide a fair amount of funding, stingers and training to use them, and intelligence. The Chinese provided huge numbers of weapons, and the Pakistanis provided logistical support and intelligence. The Iranians also provided financial and material support.
All of this support was funnelled through many different groups, each representing an ethnic group, a region or a political or religious group. It was a vast web of alliances which only held itself together (to the extent it did) to fight the greater threat of the Soviet Union. The nascent al Quiada was formed late in the war with Saudi and other (mostly private) Gulf money. The Taliban did not exist until after the war (and U.S. involvement) was over. The press gets it wrong 9 times out of 10 because they are too lazy to see the effort to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan for what it was, a remarkably diverse and large number of groups held together for a single goal. When the Soviets pulled out and their puppet regime collapsed the differences between the various Muj groups devolved into incessant warfare.
The Taliban was formed mostly from the children of Afghan refugees who had fled the fighting. These children were schooled in Pakistan in religious schools, and were heavily influenced by the Pakistani government, who supplied them lavishly with weapons when they made their move several years into the civil war. Their numbers were butressed by the addition of a fairly large number of Pakistani fundamentalists, and the number of foreign Taliban elements continued to grow as time passed. They managed to sweep aside the weakened main parties to the civil war with the exception of the Northern Alliance, which managed to hold on to a small corner of Afghanistan along the borders of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, from which they received support and supplies originating in Russia and Iran.
Perhaps you can show me a shred of evidence that U.S. money ever was sent to al Quaida. I have never seen any evidence of this, but I have seen numerous people who were part of the U.S. operation to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan say the opposite, including the man who headed the effort for 6 years (see the Frontline special on PBS to see him interviewed on camera).
As far as I know no U.S. supplied weapon has ever caused a casualty to an American in the region, in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, even though we have fought with all three. Perhaps you can show me some evidence that our weapons have come back to bite us here. A 1970's era F-14 without spare parts or advanced missles is a waste of hangar space when contemplating it's usefulness against the U.S.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
When we went to war against the Taliban, we were told Al Qaeda was an integral part of the Taliban providing a key defensive component against the N Alliance, therefore, money given to the Taliban was used for Al Qaeda. Money is fungible, give money to the Taliban and they can afford to give money to Al Qaeda... |
Al Quaida did not provide a key defensive component for the Taliban or against the Northern Alliance. They did provide lots of money in exchange for a base of operations. While I agree that these two groups had similar goals in many ways and were obviously allied, the amount of force al Quaida could provide to the Taliban was miniscule, as was the amount of money the Taliban could provide al Quaida.
I agree that giving any money to the Taliban strengthened it, and to a much lesser degree al Quaida. Even the Clinton administration realized their folly, and cut the program off after a year (IIRC) and only a modest amount (by nation state standards) of money exchanged hands.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
drake
|
 |
Maine, US
Oct 2000
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
The Saudis funded OBL and the Taliban. Where do you think they got the money? |
I'm trying to learn a thing or two...I was looking for a link to a documented story........
What saudis? The Saudi government? Saudi terrorists? Who? Help me out here.
edit: Never mind, I did my own research.....and found how ignorant I was on the subject.
Seems the link between oil and terrorism is pretty un-deniable......but what to do???? How does a nation dependent on oil cope with such a situation?
Last edited by drake on 28-02-2002 at 18:49
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-02-2002 04:24
|