|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Why not? Guns are extremely dangerous, but if we were to make them illegal in the States they'd just be smuggled in with worse results. |
Handguns pose social problems, indeed. But they are not addictive. Nor do they cause the kinds of violence we see associated with cocaine, crystal meth, angel dust, etc., etc.
Hard to believe people here suggest that people ought to have a right to market and consume these kinds of drugs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cigerettes and booze have killed way more people than angel dust, yet everyone (I suspect at least with booze) on this board approves of the sale and distribution of these terrible drugs. Why is that different? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If America can have nukes, why cannot Iran?
If Americans can smoke cigarettes or drink wine, why can they not get high on angel dust?
I think I see a pattern here, Octavius. W. Bush may be unfit to govern. But should people like you ever seize power (you would never be elected; never kid yourself on this point), we would descend into utter revolution and chaos. And nothing would remain standing in its aftermath.
This you call "fairness" and "consistency." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
If Americans can smoke cigarettes or drink wine, why can they not get high on angel dust?
|
I don't really know that much about angel dust. Do you?
Oh, and are you saying that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice try Gopher but now you are being illogical. If the government says you have the right to smoke and drink, how can they tell you you can't smoke weed or shoot herion?
You are trying to compare apples with oranges. And BTW, Iran is entitled to have Nukes, its just probably not a great idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, Octavius...? Who is introducing fuzzy thinking here?
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| The classic exmple is MDMA (Ecstacy). It was legal and widely availble one summer in Texas. Thousands of people took it and no one died, but that SOB Reagan hated people having non-prescription fun so they made it illegal. Now, last month Harvard University has said that they drug is good for PTS sufferers... |
And, if it is true (and I really have no idea) that the Reagan Administration banned "ecstasy," do you truly believe that the goverment's motivation was simply to keep people from having fun...?
Is your view of the United States truly that dark...?
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| If the government says you have the right to smoke and drink, how can they tell you you can't smoke weed or shoot [heroin]? |
At the end of the day, Octavius, all governments produce policies based on their complex interactions with society. And these are the policy statements we in America have produced -- contradictions and all. They remain in flux, like nearly everything else. But that is the way it is: Americans accept smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol but not illegal drugs -- and especially not "hard" drugs like angel dust.
And if everyone -- that is, each individual person -- decided to evaluate each and every law and decide which ones he or she would obey or disregard in their everyday lives, then society would simply disintegrate. I realize that I am going against the South Korean ex-pat community's interests (there are a great deal of drug abusers and alcoholics among you). But this represents the nature of our disagreement on this issue.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But that is the way it is: American accept smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol but not illegal drugs, and especially not "hard" drugs like angel dust. |
And what definition of "hard" drugs are you using here?
Oh, and are you saying that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Why not? Guns are extremely dangerous, but if we were to make them illegal in the States they'd just be smuggled in with worse results. |
Handguns pose social problems, indeed. But they are not addictive. Nor do they cause the kinds of violence we see associated with cocaine, crystal meth, angel dust, etc., etc.
Hard to believe people here suggest that people ought to have a right to market and consume these kinds of drugs. |
The current 'Drug War' is not working. People are already marketing and consuming these drugs. For quite a hefty mark-up. Without regulations. Cutting their stuff deadly. That is the main point.
Comparisons to Iran's nuclear program don't help at all. Comparisons to Afghanistan's poppy trade might serve us better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Comparisons to Iran's nuclear program don't help at all. Comparisons to Afghanistan's poppy trade might serve us better. |
Of course, I was not citing a comparison per se, but rather Octavius's position on "consistency" on a host of issues -- and explaining where such a reckless position might lead us.
Kuros: I think I am more socially conservative than you, at least on this issue, and we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I see nothing good in legalizing drugs like cocaine, crystal meth, or angel dust for recreational purposes.
And citing that something exists de facto is not always a good argument for assigning it legitimacy. How about children using these drugs? That exists. Would you legalize that as well? If not, and I suspect not, then surely you draw some lines somewhere on the use and abuse of these drugs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
riverboy
Joined: 03 Jun 2003
Location: Incheon
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think we have to address the level of addiction that goes with the drug itself. Marijuana is not physically addictive and is a very benign drug. Governments could simply make it legal to grow a limited amount of plants for personal use, but there is a much bigger agenda against marijuana than simple drug use.
Heroin and cocaine are both very addictive and while I agree that making them illegal only creates and fuels an illegal market, they should be in some form or another controlled. If you look at the problem with prescription drugs right now in Canada, then making highly addictive drugs legal has its problems as well. Oxycotton, dilaudud, percosets and many more drugs are ruining many peopl today. I know of a lot of people addicted to prescription drugs, and they got them legally from thier doctors!
England, America and many other Colonial powers damn near destroyed Asian countires with Opium. Drugs can be a major problem regardless of how fun they are. Decriminalisation is probably a good start in curbing organised crime, but there are certain other problems that will arise when it comes to addiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Sorry, Octavius...? Who is introducing fuzzy thinking here?
Octavius Hite wrote:
The classic exmple is MDMA (Ecstacy). It was legal and widely availble one summer in Texas. Thousands of people took it and no one died, but that SOB Reagan hated people having non-prescription fun so they made it illegal. Now, last month Harvard University has said that they drug is good for PTS sufferers...
And, if it is true (and I really have no idea) that the Reagan Administration banned "ecstasy," do you truly believe that the goverment's motivation was simply to keep people from having fun...?
Is your view of the United States truly that dark...?
Octavius Hite wrote:
If the government says you have the right to smoke and drink, how can they tell you you can't smoke weed or shoot [heroin]?
At the end of the day, Octavius, all governments produce policies based on their complex interactions with society. And these are the policy statements we in America have produced -- contradictions and all. They remain in flux, like nearly everything else. But that is the way it is: American accept smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol but not illegal drugs, and especially not "hard" drugs like angel dust.
And if everyone -- that is, each individual person -- decided to evaluate each and every law and decide which ones he or she would obey or disregard in their everyday lives, then society would simply disintegrate. I realize that I am going against the South Korean ex-pat community's interests (there are a great deal of drug abusers and alcoholics among you). But this represents the nature of our disagreement on this issue. |
1. To the question of whether the US is that dark, I answer yes. We know that Reupblicans hate when ordinary people have fun (thats why they hate gays, it just drives them crazy that there are men out there getting sex whenever they want and they have to wait for a woman to give them permission) and this played a small role in the banning of MDMA. But more than hating fun, Republicans hate not making money. MDMA was an unpatented drug which meant that Pfzier, Merck, etc couldn't make a profits. You can bet you a$$ that if they had invented it they would have patented it, and then marketed it as an anti-depressent (and a mighty effective one at that, according to Harvard University.
As well, most other drug laws are based on racism. The anti-pot laws in the US are directly related to racism against Mexicans. In Canada the anti dope laws were passed a measure against the Chinese who were rioting in BC against unfair labour practices, the government responded by banning opium and weed, but the slavery continued.
So yes I think national governments can make bad decsions based not on science and fact but on greed and religious fallacy.
2. If the US Supreme Court can rule that abortions are covered by privacy, then surely what we put into our bodies is private and therefore none of the government's buisness.
3. No one has yet disputed that the drug war was lost a long time ago. It is every citizens duty in a democracy to oppose unjust and unfair laws that hurt society. The current anti-drug laws do both and should be opposed by all.
And asa student of latin american history, how can a government tell its own citizens not to do drugs and then have the CIA buying and selling them????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| And as a student of [L]atin [A]merican history, how can a government tell its own citizens not to do drugs and then have the CIA buying and selling them????? |
This is untrue, Octavius. You merely repeat someone else's innuendo/unsubstantiated allegation here. If you intend to challenge this, please cite specifics and cite your sources so that we might all evaluate this claim.
Can we take people with overly-patriotic worldviews at their word when they tell us about American history? No we cannot.
Can we take critics and their harshly-cynical and -negative worldviews at their word when they tell us about American history? Absolutely not. They do not exactly write with the evenest hands, do they Octavius? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I personally do think that statistics shouldn't be ignored just because we don't like them. |
I hope you are not attributing this view to me, Adventurer. |
What I am saying is according to the information we can gather the U.S. is number one and Brazil is number 2. Why not go with that instead of dismiss it?
Also, why make someone from Seattle or Minneapolis a criminal and give him a felony for having some cocaine? I think it is a very bad choice to take cocaine. It is like a sin against your body so to speak. But will make all these people felons solve the problem? There are so many people out there getting addicted on meth, cocaine, and heroin.
It is becoming quite serious and some drugs can be made domestically, so simply focusing on bad Latin American drug lords isn't the solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe so, but we know that Air America was running smack out of southeast asia to fund anti-communist movements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Octavius Hite wrote: |
| Maybe so, but we know that Air America was running smack out of southeast asia to fund anti-communist movements. |
Yes they were. Absolutely. But they did not create said drug trade. Moreover, narcotics-enforcement hardly existed in the 1950s and 1960s in American policy circles. Was not an issue, or at least not a significant issue at the time. Not until the 1970s and especially the 1980s. And, however this may be, mastering or at least accepting that trade is how one deals with local warlords and governments and generally fights wars in that part of the world since as far back as my historical knowledge goes.
Never said America was Mother Teresa, Octavius. Perhaps others do. I do not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
