The War on Drugs is a War on Innocent People

Not everyone but most people I think would disagree with you.
Perhaps you should know who your talking about before you make blanket statements . . .

Not everybody on that list deserves respect in my opinion, but many of them do and I believe many of them mad great contributions to society.

 

where did i say that the act of taking drugs is NOT a crime...please shoe me that.

 

What's wrong with crime?

 

Alright, let me rephrase that. You admit that there is no victim in the act of taking or possessing drugs. It is other actions which might have victims.

 

Its good that the drug CRIME affects the black community MORE than it does mine. If you feel the need to report then go for it..

 

Please show me a post where i state that!

 

Depends on the crime.
Henry David Thoreau would have us believe that sometimes behaving in a criminal manner (civil disobedience) is the moral and rightful thing to do (to borrow words from efjay I think)

 

Exceptions not the rule..

 

Oh, so drugs are bad, because they hurt people, but drugs are also good, because they hurt people.

I'm having a seance with McCarthy as we speak.

 

By that i meant that its a good think MY community does not have to deal with it as much. And thats the way i would like to keep it.

 

and what community is that?

 

Now maybe I'm biased because I'm a mathematician, but isn't it the exceptions which disprove the rule?

 

In my line of work and indeed many types of job not only is that illegal is also bloody dangerous. I wouldn't want some junkie working along side me.

 

Famous Opiate Users:

Marcus Aurelius
Ben Franklin
William Wilberforce
Florence Nightingale
Charles Dickens
Edgar Allen Poe
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Pablo Picasso
Bela Lugosi
Ray Charles
Billie Holiday
John Lennon

 

Many jobs =/= all jobs.

 

you made me lol with that one.

Excuse me your bias is showing.

 

Throwing up a post with a few junkies that have done something useful does NOT prove that the millions of junkies in the world are worth keeping around.

 

That Wilberforce guy was pretty subversive...

 

No he was a moron.

 

You know what, I think we should give the Pareto efficiency of slavery another look too.

 

Be careful, if efjay had an idea what you were talking about you and he would be in agreement.

 

Pointing a gun at a mob boss, a welfare abuser, a scam artist, or a robber and pointing a gun at John Doe the hard working farmer are two different things. By removing the scumbags who take from society and never give back you are protecting the interests of the people who contribute honestly. Just because something is authoritarian doesn't make it evil by default.

Individualists have a tendency to care more about being just that. Individuals. Many don't understand that there is no such thing as true individualism (in the fact that we are all cookie cutter products and members the exact same species with only moderate differences between ourselves). Individualists, if this discussion is any indication, don't know the meaning of "community". Or self sacrifice for that matter. Yeah it's cool that you want to look out for your personal interests but those mean nothing when the entire town is crumbling.

It is decided what is considered clean and healthy based on what is in the best interest of the people affected. Ever noticed how groups of Humans tend to have similar reactions to a cataclysmic event such as economic recession? This is because of how Human brains are wired. When we see something that threatens us we react based on our instincts. And Human instincts know that flooding the gene pool with chemicals and other substances which cause retardation and disease is bad. This is how people know that drugs are terrible and should be illegal. When you grow up and mature you will realize it too. There's a reason why middle aged people, the ones who were hippies in their youth, are so strongly against it. And that is life experience and an instinctual drive to protect the species.

Oh and imprisoning drug users doesn't solve anything. You want a real alternative? Cure the users and execute the cause of it all (Colombian runners for one) but not before putting them to hard work. Do note that once pot and every thing else is legalized it will just become the next tobacco. The new big pharma. Major international corporations will form to manufacture and distribute marijuana in bulk without caring at all about who gets addicted, who dies in a hospital bed, and who loses all their money to feed an addiction to yet another harmful product. You thought cigarette prices were bad? Wait till you see what happens to weed. And this is the problem with every pro-legalization person. They think that it'll just magically become awesome. As if all the bad parts of drugs will go away. Well, it doesn't go away. It becomes normalized.

 

Like...

...

...the government?

Like the government?

I can't think of any exceptions to that rule.

Seeing as how existing is, well, my whole existence, yes, I do care about that. A lot.

How can I understand something that's not true?

If the differences are only moderate then it shouldn't be very hard for you to be me. Show me what cookie cutter I came from.

Well, I don't know the meaning of meaningless abstractions because I'm not a communist.

Nobody can know the real meaning of pure evil.

How can a town crumble if all of the individuals in it are doing just fine
?

How do you know what's in their best interests?

Now I know why you attach so much pride to having a brain stem. Apparently it's the only part you use. Those of us with an interest in climbing out of the primordial ooze, aren't obsessed with instinct, because instinct won't tell you how to calculate a Jacobian.

The only reason why cigarette prices are high is because the government taxes them.

 

This is why drugs should be legal, we can stop pointing the gun at John Doe.

Where did you come up with this? My good friends and I are all individualists, 3 of the 6 of us are veterans and one who isn't a vet is a teacher. Don't tell me individualists don't contribute. Yeah we're not going to go to your community meeting or support you community effort to ban X, but that's because the community is garbage and we support the right to do X because individuals should be able to live their own lives without the majority trying to use violence against them because the majority doesn't like how they roll.

Just because groups of people react to a situation does not make that reaction correct. Genocide happens because of what you've said.

So you're advocating that we used force labor then execute people who provide others with a product you don't agree with. Harsh I'd say.

 

Right. Those in the former group have all committed acts of violence against the persons and property of others. Ergo, it is a legitimate act of self-defense to retaliate against the violence they've committed.

I think people who violently invade the persons and property of others are the scumbags. Since you are advocating violating the persons and property of people that ingest some arbitrary list of substances you don't like, that puts you in "scumbag" category of my chart, which means you ought to be "removed."

What individualists care about is nonviolence. Individualists don't condemn Mother Theresa, who was entirely focused on "self-sacrifice" for the community. Because her altruism was nonviolent.

But locking people in cages for personal habits you don't like isn't altruism. It isn't pro-community. It's cruel and violent and antisocial and despotic and made even more despicable when you deceptively and hypocritically attempt to dress up the violence as compassion and "self-sacrifice.

Look as the phrasing of this sentence. "It is decided..." Sorry, who decided? Certainly I didn't decide. And certainly "the people affected" didn't decide that they should be locked in a cage for engaging in private, nonviolent activities they chose to engage in. No, YOU decided it, or people who just so happened to agree with you.

"Clean and healthy"? Junk food isn't clean and healthy. Do you ever indulge in junk food. Perhaps I should abduct you and lock you up for that and proclaim it to be an act of charity towards you.

Of course, you'll split hairs and say "Well, that's different. It's not as bad. 'We've' decided what the precise objective limit of appropriate badness is..." But it's all about you getting to impose you personal preferences on the rest of us. All the rest is rhetoric.

All of this is your own personal rant against things you personally dislike. As for me, I dislike self-righteous busybodies and consider them the 1000x more damaging to "the community" than all the drugs on the planet put together. Ergo, I recommend legalizing all drugs and instead arresting busybodies and locking them in cages if they attempt to impose their wills on others through force.