Slashdot Mirror
Local News Anchor Feels Pain from Afar
In times when Clear Channel makes up "local news" reports from central studios and broadcasts them over radio stations around the country, it's worth asking the question: when does it cross the line into deception?
> Everybody's doing it. Which is why it is also okay to do drugs, j
It's ok to do drugs because it's your choice, and nobody elses.
No. It should be your choice to do drugs AT YOUR HOME. Once you get behind the wheel/out in public and you endanger others the goverment should step in.
And how exactly is the "war" on drugs helping that?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Alright let's put this in order.
;-)
Someone argues: How does the war on drugs stop second hand drug related deaths? (IE. Someone get's stoned and hits someone with a car.)
I refute: The war on drugs SHOULD end those types of deaths. It is in place to stop drugs from being used. If no drugs are used, no drug-related deaths can occur.
You argue: Well, alchohol is legal, just drinking while drunk isn't.
I argue now: Thank you captain obvious. Drugs could be legal and have the same laws and alchohol, and it would have the same effect. However, that doesn't take away the fact that the illegalization of drugs ALSO stops those types of deaths.
I leave by saying... and I wouldn't mind alchohol being completely illegal either....
First, I have to admit that I browse at +1 with the show-nested-comments-on-main-page thingy set to +3, and I browse highest scores first. So I don't read very many low-rated posts.
:gasp: karma for it, but somebody has to do it!" But in reality he's just saying the exact same thing that every single other poster on the entire site has been saying since the beginning of time.
Do posts with phrases like "I'm sure to lose karma" or "I'm sure I'll be modded down for this, but..." ever actually get modded down? I'm utterly sick of reading this phrase. It inevitably is in a post whose opinion is against "the public"'s opinion but is perfectly aligned with what all of the slashbots think. So of course it will get modded up, because it contributes to the great groupthink project. However, the poster has to imagine persecution. Even though all of his friends and everyone on this site agrees with what he's saying, he puts in a little persecution complex. "It hurts to bear the truth, and I'll lose
Sigh. I guess I'll go take my meds and relax now.
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Most illegal drugs were banned early on before the market solidified. As was demonstrated in the 20s, outlawing alcohol isn't feasable until other criminal fields are profitable enough that the new alcohol market doesn't destablize their power structure. That sort of thing causes a sort of runaway inflation for the mafia. Prostitution and gambling crash in relative value, so everybody is forced to move into alcohol distribution to maintain their power base, something the alcohol market simply can't bear. Hence all the shooting. Other drugs are unpredictable and spread-out enough that they aren't that distruptive, but either alcohol or tobacco would be too dangerous to outlaw, even today.
Now quit asking questions that you already know the answer to.
you let bush and the republicans get elected. they said they'd deregulate, and they have. and it's as crappy and shitty as we liberals said it would be. but hey, it is profitable, hurrah!
so pat yourselves on the back for a job well done. good going guys!
yeay you!
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Take a drug like heroin. Heroin is actually a fairly benign pain killer. it's addictive to about a third of the people who take it (compare that to tobacco!) and, by itself, unless taken in overly large quantities, it has little negative affect on the user. In Britain until 1970, the number of heroin addicts was counted in the hundreds. Doctors prescribed the drug to the addicts, limiting their quantities and with the drug supplied by legally accountable organizations. Organized crime didn't get a look in - there was no point in selling the drug to someone who could then go to a doctor and get it on the NHS. Deaths were practically non-existant.
Illegalization, frankly, screwed that up. Nixon's War on Drugs was fought internationally and Britain signed up. Heroin was outlawed. So it became available to everyone! Suddenly organized crime had a captive market. Heroin was pushed by the same people who sold more popular drugs such as Cannabis, which also could only be obtained via illegal means. Crime syndicates had little or no accountability: one day they'd over-cut the drug to sell to more addicts (the poor reputation of heroin is in part because of this: the drug is frequently cut with stuff nobody in their right mind would want in their bodies), another they'd supply it raw to someone expecting it cut. Overdoses became common. More importantly, addicts became common. By the late nineties, Britain's heroin addicts reputedly hit six digits.
Illegalization causes drugs related deaths. Drugs related deaths would be less frequent with their legalization, unless and until someone can come up with a way of removing drugs completely. NEVER confuse criminalizing something with getting rid of it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Bull crap.
...It has since turned into the devil's own trap, killing young Miskito Indian men and damaging the Miskito culture perhaps beyond repair... ...Drugs and unprotected sex traditionally go together. A visiting doctor at a charity-sponsored clinic on Sandy Bay confirmed that the No. 1 problem he saw was sexually transmitted disease, such as AIDS.... ...Traditional Miskito houses didn't have window panes, leaving the rooms open to the breeze. There was no need to lock doors or windows because most property was held in common and thievery was relatively unknown. Robberies now plague the community.... ... [Mrs. Wilfred's] nephew, 25, a well-paid diver who spent all his previous month's salary on crack, came home naked after having sold his clothes.
... The lobstermen die because they smoke crack before donning their oxygen tanks and diving. They say it helps their endurance. But police say the divers believe the oxygen helps with the high, and they make terrible mistakes under the drug's influence and die... ...a tall, lithe ex-boxer said he lost his electrician's job, his wife, his children and his home to the drug.... ...A 13-year-old Edwin Pereira, steals to feed his habit.
These are addictive substances that will rot a society to death from the inside out.
You want a case study? Try the following. These are excerpts from a Washington Times article Dated June 11, 2002, written by Robert E. Sullivan.
It discusses the Miskito tribe in Nicaragua. A communal society of 25,000 that made the decision to enter the drug market when they found some cases of cocaine washed up their beaches. They then LEGALIZED the cocaine in their community, so all the asinine arguments about drug problems existing because the drugs are illegal do NOT apply. Read on to find out what life is now like in this cocaine users utopia.
====
The nephew, who declined to give his name, said he was a "slave" to the drug, but blamed the police. When he was arrested, he said, the police asked where he obtained the drug. When he identified the crack house, "they went and just got their share of the drug" to sell themselves...
====
This is the world legalized addictive drugs creates. I won't allow you to turn my world into this nightmare with your asinine, idiotic and completely self-centered legalize drugs propaganda.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
lol that's a lame argument. I'm surprised people fell for it... but not me :)
:) ): No they aren't. :) ): Well you are picking a tiny extreme point and arguing against it. That's a lame argument.
:)
You are using an argument that is a poor technique (kind of like ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, non-sequitur, etc). You are attempting to refute an argument by picking some TINY point in the argument and proving that wrong. It's almost like the following argument:
Person 1: Seatbelts are good for everyone. They save lives
Person 2 (you
Person 1: Yes they are
Person 2: Nope.
Person 1: Prove it
Person 2: Babies wearing seat belts can kill them. Therefore, seat belts are bad. They should be aboslished
Person 3 (me
People stoned and driving cars can kill people... but so can people who put paper bags on their heads and drive cars. Though dangerous in both cases, neither case warrants banning drugs or the paper bag
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places