PDA

View Full Version : Terrorism-Drug Money Commercials


trebblekicked
Jan 4, 2003, 09:36 PM
Few things in this world anger me as much as simplistic propaganda propogating under a blanket-power conservative government. Witness these anti-drug commercials:

DRUG MONEY SUPPORTS TERROR!!!!


a paraphrase:

kid a: I was just having some fun.

kid b: i help terrorists kill children

kid c: some harmless fun.

HOW DOES THIS ENCOURAGE FREE THOUGHT AND DEBATE ON THE ISSUE?
This ad campaign is doing more harm than good. It is sealing the door on the issue of drug decriminalization by infecting youth with a black and white image of this issue. Any intelligent person knows there is far more to the subject than 'drugs are bad'. These ads push conservative ideology on the subject leaving no option for rebuttal. It's like taking half of the debate to the public and leaving the opposition powerless. And when the opposition is progressive thought, i tend to get my knickers in a bunch.

Here's a way to ensure and i mean GUARUNTEE that terrorists will not benefit from drug sales in the US:

decriminalize and regulate!

it's that simple. US Government sells marijuana to legal aged adults (18, 21, whatever). US Government sells marijuana at prices that make black market sales unattractive. Drug dealers go out of business. Terrorists get no money (Since these ads specifically target young kids and marijuana, i'm just talking about teens and pot.) Decreminalize other drugs and run ads based on factual evidence (of which there is plenty) that prove drugs are bad.

Of course this is overly simplistic and ultra-progressive, but what do you think?

BTW: the only governor in the US to support drug decriminalization was the governor in New Mexico. And he was Republican. Does anyone know what happened to him or his drug plan? Thanks.

alex_ant
Jan 4, 2003, 10:01 PM
Fool, everybody knows drug money supports terror. Drugs are un-American, illegal, and probably communist. So if you want to fight terror, don't buy drugs - buy a big Ford SUV instead. You'll be fighting terror, AND supporting the American economy! You'll even be given tax cuts so you can afford to buy more gas.

Durandal7
Jan 4, 2003, 10:04 PM
My favorite ad is this one:
Guy A: Why should I believe drug money supports terror?
Guy B: Because it's true

That's it, no fine print, no sources. The whole ad, right there.

Sun Baked
Jan 4, 2003, 10:06 PM
You smoke this legal and highly addictive drug and there's a chance you will die someday. Though there's little chance that you'll kill someone today in a DUI accident because you just smoked it.

You have one heck of a dangerous drug legal in the US (cigarettes) and people would be happy if the govt took it off the street.

---

You can drink this legally, but there's a good chance you'll kill someone when you get behind the wheel.

Alchohol and driving kills.
---

Legalize marijuana, crack, heroin, oxycontin, etc and you'll have more DUIs driving around than you do now.

It'll get very dangerous to walk or drive around, watch COPS and how many idiots do you see with drugs in the car now. Now imagine if drugs were legal.

Nipsy
Jan 4, 2003, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked

Legalize marijuana, crack, heroin, oxycontin, etc and you'll have more DUIs driving around than you do now.

It'll get very dangerous to walk or drive around, watch COPS and how many idiots do you see with drugs in the car now. Now imagine if drugs were legal.

Okay, follow me:

If there are 10,000 drug related murders, 20,000 drug related taxpayer 3-5 year
"hotel" stays, 250,000 taxpayer funded court appearances, and 5,000 alchohol related vehicular homicides today, and we legalize drugs tomorrow, what will happen?

Say next year there are 500 drug related homicides, 2,000 drug related prison stays, 40,000 drug related taxpayer funded court appearances, and 7,500 alchohol related vehicular homicides.

Notice we've gone from 15,000 to 8,000 deaths, greatly reduced the prison population, and cleared the court system to prosecute more serious crimes like file sharing or reading an e-book you didn't pay for?

Futhermore, in a legalized system, there is an initial spike in drug use, but not a proven overall increase. In Holland, PER CAPITA crime is lower ACROSS the board, even though pot is legal, and hard drugs are treated like San Francisco treats pot.

Furthermore, if drugs were legal, and regulated, people would take them from Walgreens to where they planned to use them, and not be driving around inner city gang turf to procure them. Gangs would get pretty bored when the drug sales market collapses. Inner cities would become safer, etc.

And the gov't coud tax everything!


The above numbers are FICTITIOUS and to illustrate a point. These are not actual statistics.

Nipsy
Jan 4, 2003, 11:21 PM
I should mention that while I do drink and do smoke, I very seldom (6 times in 3 years) do any illegal drugs, so I should not be discounted as a pothead, druggie, etc.

It just seems obvious that decriminalization of drugs is the easiest way to reduce serious urban crime, reduce the taxpayer burden, increase revenue to the military industrial complex, and give people some freedom of choice.

Remember, folks, that most drug overdoses result from badly mixed/unknown/variable strength drugs, not the drugs themselves. So, additionally, we would likely see a lesser number of overdoses.

We allow people the freedom to kill themselves with tobacco, and alcohol, but not pot induced Twinkie eating?

Get over it...~90% of the country would continue living in a drug legal America just as they do today. ~8% would greatly reduce their exposure to crimnal danger, and ~2% would have to get real jobs, because gang banging/drug dealing no longer paid.

Juventuz
Jan 4, 2003, 11:23 PM
I believe that we should legalize marijuana. I myself don't smoke it, but I know a lot of people (people you'd never think either) who smoke it. My old housemates used to smoke it and all they'd do is sit and watch tv and eat. They always tried to get me to smoke, but I never had the money to waste on it. I struggled with paying my tuition and rent too much to waster it on weed. They never went out driving or did anything else stupid when they smoked up.

There are two reasons I believe we should legalize it, first is because it's nowhere near as dangerous as alcohol and secondly because it's a great source of taxes. Marijuana was the US' biggest cash crop last year, with estimates of 32 billion of it being sold in the US. Imagine if it were legal and we taxed it at a 10-15% level, that would be a nice source of income for the government.

Now my future brother-in-law is a State Trooper in VT and he works in narcotics, he's firmly anti-legalization of marijuana because he says it leads to the harder drugs. Does it? I believe in does in some cases, but in the GREAT majority I don't believe it. I think the police are afraid that they will loose a lot of their funding, but I think they could gain some by the new taxes. Not to mention how much they wouldn't be wasting on the arresting and processing of people growing or selling weed.

alex_ant
Jan 4, 2003, 11:49 PM
Has anyone seen that commercial where the two guys are smoking weed in a bathroom stall at a concert, a cop comes in and busts them, and then it changes to a shot of the dropped joint in front of the urinal next to a one-word message that I forget but that's supposed to send some kind of ominous and foreboding message to drug users and would-be drug users everywhere? I wonder if any ad like this has ever, in the history of the world, affected one single person.

"Yeah, I used to smoke put, but then I found out that it was illegal, you know, so I quit."

"I was thinking about taking up heroin, but then I saw this commercial that said 'Drugs kill. Brought to you by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America' and I was like, 'Whoa, you've gotta be kidding me! Drugs kill??? What was I thinking?!?!'"

What's funny is that conservatives think that drugs being illegal = drug use ceasing, and that in any instance where this doesn't hold up, the solution is to enact even harsher penalties for drug use. Because of course, "Statistics show that the threat of a strong punishment is a strong deterrent." So we start giving potheads 5 year sentences for possession, and then we wonder why people still smoke pot - so we increase the sentence to 10! DUH.

The drug problem can be solved by applying simple psychology. Why do so many people do drugs? Because they're mysterious and alluring and because they offer entry into desirable cliques. They do this, of course, because they're illegal and forbidden. People want what they can't have. If we want 99% of all drug use in the U.S. to cease, the solution is to legalize them all - from pot to crack to meth - and sell them at every 7-11 in the nation to absolutely anyone who wants them, from children to adults. The solution to the drug problem is to treat drugs like Liquid Drano, because treating them as such removes all desirable and "cool" peripheral properties from them and makes them precisely as desirable to use as Drano. Why don't people sit around their houses drinking Drano? Because it's utterly stupid!

Alcohol is available to all ages in France. Why aren't the French a bunch of raving drunks? I remember being in French class in high school when this question was posed to my teacher:

"Why isn't there a minimum drinking age in France? Don't kids get drunk a lot?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Do you ever sit around drinking milk until you throw up?"
"No."
"There you go then."

In short, America's drug problem is sustained by a self-defeating culture of drug-phobia.

Nipsy
Jan 5, 2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Has anyone seen that commercial where the two guys are smoking weed in a bathroom stall at a concert, a cop comes in and busts them, and then it changes to a shot of the dropped joint in front of the urinal next to a one-word message that I forget but that's supposed to send some kind of ominous and foreboding message to drug users and would-be drug users everywhere? I wonder if any ad like this has ever, in the history of the world, affected one single person.

"Yeah, I used to smoke put, but then I found out that it was illegal, you know, so I quit."

"I was thinking about taking up heroin, but then I saw this commercial that said 'Drugs kill. Brought to you by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America' and I was like, 'Whoa, you've gotta be kidding me! Drugs kill??? What was I thinking?!?!'"

What's funny is that conservatives think that drugs being illegal = drug use ceasing, and that in any instance where this doesn't hold up, the solution is to enact even harsher penalties for drug use. Because of course, "Statistics show that the threat of a strong punishment is a strong deterrent." So we start giving potheads 5 year sentences for possession, and then we wonder why people still smoke pot - so we increase the sentence to 10! DUH.

The drug problem can be solved by applying simple psychology. Why do so many people do drugs? Because they're mysterious and alluring and because they offer entry into desirable cliques. They do this, of course, because they're illegal and forbidden. People want what they can't have. If we want 99% of all drug use in the U.S. to cease, the solution is to legalize them all - from pot to crack to meth - and sell them at every 7-11 in the nation to absolutely anyone who wants them, from children to adults. The solution to the drug problem is to treat drugs like Liquid Drano, because treating them as such removes all desirable and "cool" peripheral properties from them and makes them precisely as desirable to use as Drano. Why don't people sit around their houses drinking Drano? Because it's utterly stupid!

Alcohol is available to all ages in France. Why aren't the French a bunch of raving drunks? I remember being in French class in high school when this question was posed to my teacher:

"Why isn't there a minimum drinking age in France? Don't kids get drunk a lot?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Do you ever sit around drinking milk until you throw up?"
"No."
"There you go then."

In short, America's drug problem is sustained by a self-defeating culture of drug-phobia.


There is so much truth in the above post that it completely overwhelms the biting sacrasm...

rainman::|:|
Jan 5, 2003, 01:24 AM
i am so angered by these commercials that i can't think straight. First off, that one where the car full of (black) guys run over a kid because they're stoned... Well i think people that drive stoned are morons, but not that stupid. Think of it this way: You get the same penalties for getting caught smoking pot in your house, or walking around, or at a party, that you do in the car. If it were legal, there would be DUI laws for pot, and consequences might make people think about it. Imagine a stoned-test you have to take, and can get thrown in jail for... it'd certainly make me think twice about driving around stoned. And let me say this. Yeah, i get stoned a lot. Once a month or so, i get a bag, and for a week, when i get home from work, i sit around and enjoy myself. Mostly play video games. it's a huge stress reliever and helps me get through the day. But i DO NOT drive stoned.

Secondly, as for these "drugs support terrorism" ads-
a: The initial commercial was such a flop, they felt inclinded to make two more, to make people actually believe it- then,
b: they make one that has a bad actor realizing it actually DOES support terrorism, simply because this other guy tells him so. THEN
c: in the third commercial, they move on, and just pretend we all believe it, to debate how MUCH goes to terrorism.

Like we're just going to gloss over the fact that they haven't proven a thing.

Also, lets face it, kids smoke pot, and they know that the Partnership's ads are lies. People don't shoot each other when they're stoned, they don't run kids over, POT DOESNT KILL YOU. So kids automatically think that the Partnership is full of it. What's a kid going to think when he hears the partnership saying that harder drugs are bad? They're going to think they're lying there, too. And i would very much like to see the X epidemic get stifled, because that stuff can be dangerous.

The Partnership shoots itself in the foot, and then promptly ignores it.

i always supported the Partnership, because they have benevolent aims. But this whole marijuana targeting campaign is a joke. I wish they'd go away. And to think, my tax dollars are going to spreading unbelievable uneffective propoganda.

:mad:
pnw

rainman::|:|
Jan 5, 2003, 01:27 AM
And don't get me started on that gateway-drug theory. Simply because people do something to begin with, doesn't mean that's what leads them on. Pot's just the easiest to get, i mean some people are determined to get really messed up, and they start with weed. Then they discover the other things (that the dealers themselves have, which would not be an issue if you bought weed at gas stations) and move on. No gateway, just first step. If pot didn't exist, there'd be some other first step.

pnw

trebblekicked
Jan 5, 2003, 02:50 AM
i don't know what it will take...

this war on drugs has been a proven failure. The drug policies of more progressive nations (read: holland) have been much more effective in erradicating illicit underage drug use, yet we refuse to even open a public debate on the issue. Ignorance truly is the enemy of progressive drug legislation, and the deck is stacked so heavily against it, those who support decriminalization face a long, lonley, and difficult road. If the political consequences of supporting drug reform weren't so dire, this would be a moot point. Sensibility would have gotten the debate going years ago. Unfortunately, conservatives feed off the fear among people, and instead of disussing the facts, are plenty happy to use drugs as another easy in to the 'average american's' vote. Just another pitfall in this dangerously one-sided society we live in today...

skunk
Jan 5, 2003, 05:43 AM
Look at it another way: if drugs were legal and taxed, and if the US government is the world's largest terrorist organization, then DRUGS would AID TERROR....;)

skunk
Jan 5, 2003, 05:50 AM
Ooops! Did I say that out loud? :rolleyes:

satanicpoptart
Jan 5, 2003, 09:52 AM
i choose to join this forum just becuase of this thread, ive always loved macrumors, ive visisted for a year. but this subject made me reply... you are all very informed and intelegent. its been proven that mac users are smarter and more sucessful then the average pc user.

i can try and bring to you a few more facts that are first hand. as a person i am:
16 years old
pot user for 3 years
dealer for 1
layed back midwest college town

ive meet alot of drug people, its what i do so everyday i meet some new pot head kid, gangster, or college prep. all of these people just want to have some fun and relax with their friends, not one of them... well besides the gansters... have a gun or participate in gang related activities, they are all really good people who love everything.

i will say that my drug use will definatly adversly affect my development as an adult. my case is more server then the average,
-most teenage pot smokers dont actualy buy pot-

pot does lead to other drugs, but only because drug dealers have many different drugs.

smoking weed dosnt not encurage crime, all the kids i sell to work hard hours at honest jobs to buy there sack, they work hard at school to get their good grades, and live a life under very high stress..

i would rave and rant more but i dont have a real direction with this post, i just feel pasionate about it....

if you have a question or coment id love to hear it

Sun Baked
Jan 5, 2003, 11:04 AM
Is this decriminalization of marijuana, or ALL drugs?

Djk515
Jan 5, 2003, 11:30 AM
Ok... first of all let's talk about the whole terrorism thing. Marijuana doesn't support terrorism, OIL SUPPORTS TERRORISM. Where do terrorists get their money? From two places: 1. Terrorist States like Iraq and Iran. Whose number one export is oil. These people hate us because they know the only reason we really care about them is their Oil. 2. Terrorists get money from corrupt charities. These are the charities we have been seeing on the news who collect money for supposedly humane purposes, but actually send it to groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

This whole drugs support terrorism thing is just some b-s, that they thought would be a good way to fight the "war" on drugs and the war on terrorism at the same time. They might as well have commercials that say "Don't do drugs, cuz Hitler would be happy if you did cuz he is bad and drugs supported Hitler." Ignorance and Oil support terrorism. Drugs support some 21 year old kid, trying to buy himself a car. Until he gets arrested. And who is he supporting? Some sleazeball gang member who gets their drugs smuggled into the country.

Second, with the whole legalization thing. People say drugs are responsible for so many crimes. They're not. The crimes people refer to when they talk about drugs are things like murders, extortion, and the distribution and consumption. The reason there are murders is because drug users and dealers steal from eachother and rip eachother off all the time. And the extortion comes from gangs and mob's whose number one source of income is drug money. That is where the drug money really goes. But without the ability to sell drugs these gangs would have nothing to live on.

Also, people say "if we legalize drugs, that's just an excuse for users to be able to get them anywhere, anytime". This is the biggest joke of them all. I used to smoke, and I did a couple other drugs like Ecstacy, Oxycontin, Mushrooms. I have seen many drug deals, many drug arrests, and many addicts. I was smart enough to stop, but don't believe that a real addict can not get the drug they want at anytime they want it with the right amount of money. You might live in a nice rural or suburban area, but I guarantee you that if an addict came to your town they could find drugs right away. Drugs are everywhere, and the spectrum of users is wide. From poor, black, welfare recipients, to rich, white, businessmen.

And you can all say you just want legal drugs cuz you used to do them. No, I am for legalization of marijuana so we can tax the hell out of it and it can be regulated. Don't call former weed-smokers unpatriotic either, I just enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and I leave for Parris Island July 11. And besides, George Washington had a hemp farm on his estate.

medea
Jan 5, 2003, 02:29 PM
Hey there is another way to make sure terrorists don't make illegal money from the selling of illegal drugs, don't do them.....dumbass.....
It's like saying, sure I had to buy these nukes off a terrorist organization, but if the government just made it legal to own your own nukes I would'nt have had to support them.....

rainman::|:|
Jan 5, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by medea
Hey there is another way to make sure terrorists don't make illegal money from the selling of illegal drugs, don't do them.....dumbass.....
It's like saying, sure I had to buy these nukes off a terrorist organization, but if the government just made it legal to own your own nukes I would'nt have had to support them.....

LISTEN TO ME. My grandmother is a dealer. i know where i get my stuff from. i know where she gets her stuff from, and where he gets HIS stuff from. Like many users, i can trace the stuff all the way back to a field in mexico. AND THERE ISN'T A TERRORIST ANYWHERE. The point of this whole thread has been that NO ONE believes this crap, because it's not even worth believing. Terrorists have plenty of money, they don't need to do petty **** like selling nickel bags to kids... there's no real money in selling pot. Satanicpoptart can back me up on this one, if they were going to make money, there are better drugs. Meth, for example, still sells for pretty good prices, and you can make it yourself. But they don't say that METH supports terrorism, just pot. Why? because pot is widely used and in danger of being legalized. And there are real reasons not to use meth, but no good reasons not to use pot.

If someone told you, without even claiming to be able to back it up, that buying Macs support terrorism, would you stop buying them? No, because you're not stupid. Neither are we.

pnw

arogge
Jan 5, 2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
My favorite ad is this one:
Guy A: Why should I believe drug money supports terror?
Guy B: Because it's true

That's it, no fine print, no sources. The whole ad, right there.

I've seen that one too; if that is supposed to convince the general public, then this might also work:

Induhvidual: "Why should I believe that spending money on Microsoft software is bad?"
Anti-Microsoft individual: "Because it's true."

rainman::|:|
Jan 5, 2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
Is this decriminalization of marijuana, or ALL drugs?

Well it's my opinion that other drugs aren't ready for decriminalization, some will never be. Pot and "magic mushrooms" (as well as peyote), i think, should be done immediately, and cocaine maybe someday. A lot of people want acid legalized, too. I'm against the harder stuff like meth, crank, etc being legalized in any way. they are unnatural drugs that must be synthesized, can can often do real harm to the user as well as society. Heroin is the one natural drug that i think should remain illegal, because of it's terrible potency.

But i think in this thread, we're just discussing marijuana, lightly touching on other things occasionally...

:)
pnw

Roger1
Jan 5, 2003, 05:47 PM
When the cops shut down illegal meth labs, they have to go in with hazmat suits, because of all the chemicals.

As for drugs supporting terrorism, for a while, the Taliban was harvesting their poppy fields for export. They quit doing it when the U.S. (or U.N?) pointed out that it was against their religion to do so.

rainman::|:|
Jan 5, 2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Roger1
When the cops shut down illegal meth labs, they have to go in with hazmat suits, because of all the chemicals.

As for drugs supporting terrorism, for a while, the Taliban was harvesting their poppy fields for export. They quit doing it when the U.S. (or U.N?) pointed out that it was against their religion to do so.

Umm, Afghanistan itself relied on poppys for a cash crop long before the taliban came into power. it's one of the only things that will grow there. True, the taliban took advantage of it, but it wasn't their idea or grand scheme.

And poppy fields in afghanistan are a far cry from marijuana growing in college kid's dorm rooms...

not sure what the point of the meth comments was, because the only meth-related comments in this thread have been anti-meth... and the hazmat thing is a well-known fact. Lithium batteries are used and can become very volitile, as well as the anhydrous ammonia which can easily destroy bodily tissue, blind a person, and explode.

:)
pnw

3rdpath
Jan 5, 2003, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Roger1

As for drugs supporting terrorism, for a while, the Taliban was harvesting their poppy fields for export. They quit doing it when the U.S. (or U.N?) pointed out that it was against their religion to do so.

actually, the people of afghanistan temporarily stopped harvesting poppies when the US payed them in cash and weapons not to grow it...

what is and isn't in line with their religion is reinterpreted by them on a daily basis based upon their capitalistic needs...much like many US religious philosophies.

Roger1
Jan 5, 2003, 06:51 PM
I put the meth comment in there for no particular reason. :)



...much like many US religious philosophies.
I don't understand this comment.

MrMacMan
Jan 5, 2003, 07:59 PM
This brings up a slightly related event where my Health teacher went rant-like and started to yell at us for no reason.

Kid: Are drugs really that dangerious/bad?
Teacher: ARE YOU KIDDING?!?!?!? IF YOU TAKE ONE PUFF OF ONE JONT YOU WILL DIE INSTANTLY! Or IF YOU DON'D DIE INSTANTLY YOU WILL DRIVE YOUR CAR INTO A BUS FULL OR PRIESTS, OR WORSE!
Another kid: I really doubt that is gonna happen Ms. _____ (name withhelp).
Teacher: IT IS TRUE, I can bring in TONS of articles where people who take drugs either die themselves or kill other people *Right* after taking.
Other kid: I really want to see more than 10 articles saying that a small amount of weed is gonna kill me instantly.
Her: I WILL BRING IN ARTICLES
:bell rings:
Her: REMEMBER CLASS IF YOU TAKE DRUGS ONCE YOUR GONNA DIE!

I was shocked how much mis-infomation was in that class, so much brainwashing and stuff.

skunk
Jan 5, 2003, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by medea
Hey there is another way to make sure terrorists don't make illegal money from the selling of illegal drugs, don't do them.....dumbass.....
It's like saying, sure I had to buy these nukes off a terrorist organization, but if the government just made it legal to own your own nukes I would'nt have had to support them.....
If this is supposed to be an argument against legalization, it's pretty feeble. Hundreds of billions of taxpayers' dollars wasted says that prohibition DOES NOT WORK. We are not talking about nukes. We are talking about recreation. Get real.

Nipsy
Jan 5, 2003, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Roger1
[B]I put the meth comment in there for no particular reason. :)





Remember, bathtub meth & crack are like moonshine...they wil lose popularity in a post prohibition era.

rainman::|:|
Jan 5, 2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by MrMacman

I was shocked how much mis-infomation was in that class, so much brainwashing and stuff.

Yeah, there was a southpark like this recently, the kids thought if they touched a joint they'd become lowlifes or die or something. Then when they didn't, they didn't know what to think. I try very hard to understand people's reasoning... i think in a lot of cases, even people who have *tried* pot as kids are brainwashed themselves into thinking that it's 10x more potent, or laced, or something... Sure pot today is a little stronger than in the '60s, but it's not nearly as potent as the hash that floated around so much in the late '60s and 70s. Most places, you can't even buy hash today, you have to make it...

as for the gov'ts stance, i think they're just afraid to admit that they're wrong. These people cannot believe what they're saying, especially since they have the numbers and facts right in front of them. But they continue a 80-year prohibition that's failed for 50+ of those years. It's very much like the alcohol prohibition, when you illegalize it, people still use, only it was dangerous (bathtub gin was rumored to cause blindness) and organized crime supported it. It's how the mafia became so well-rooted in American culture. that's what continues to happen today; gangs and "lowlifes" (no offense satanicpoptart, you know what i mean) deal it, people use just like always.

i urge you all to support your local chapter of NORML. It's not just for hippies anymore; and they're the only organization offering real resistance. You don't have to smoke weed to know that *everyone* would benefit from legalization...

And Roger1, i just wanted to clarify that, it was hard to understand your meaning... no offense, of course...

:)
pnw

rainman::|:|
Jan 5, 2003, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Nipsy



Remember, bathtub meth & crack are like moonshine...they wil lose popularity in a post prohibition era.

Hey, great minds think alike Nipsy :)

pnw

TMay
Jan 5, 2003, 09:24 PM
One man's terrorist is another's entrepeneur.

Phillip Morris has been accused, on more than a few instances, and with quite a bit of supportive evidence, of using some pretty seedy groups to circumvent other countries tobacco regulations and taxes, Canada being a prime example.

The US government, contrary to international law, has done little to prosecute Phillip Morris because, I suppose, of the immense lobbying money dumped on our legislators.

Truth be told, the world loves our American ideals, and hates us for our lip service to them when it isn't convenient.

If drug's were legal, they would be cheap, and bureaucrats and criminals would have to generate income elsewhere. Talk about a symbiotic relationship. Its almost as lame as Bush and Saddam, or maybe more appropriately, Bush and Osama.

Nipsy
Jan 5, 2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by TMay

If drug's were legal, they would be cheap, and bureaucrats and criminals would have to generate income elsewhere. Talk about a symbiotic relationship. Its almost as lame as Bush and Saddam, or maybe more appropriately, Bush and Osama.

Cocaine costs $60 a gram, and people who want it will find it.

Pot costs $40 for several grams, and people who want it will find it.

Industry can produce the products for pennies a gram, and make healthy profits, the gov't can make heatlhy taxes, and the products won't be 'cheap'.

A pack of cigarrettes costs $5, but a lone cigar might cost $8, and a bottle of wine can run from $5-5,000. These are prices people will pay.

If drugs were legalized, they should cost more than they do now (for 2 or 3 years) to discourage curious users. Then, they should settle into realistic market prices (what people will pay), based on market conditions (inclusive of taxes).

rainman::|:|
Jan 5, 2003, 10:46 PM
I'd easily pay $50 for a pack of 20 medium grade joints. They could have different brands that are different strains, or different potencies... i agree, let the government control it, i don't want another Phillip Morris to deal with... it would be huge revenue, maybe resulting in tax breaks for the impoverished...

You know, the canadian government has underground caves full of different strains, being grown for medicinal purposes and eventually mass sale. What i wouldn't give for an hour in one of those caves...

They say Phillip Morris has equipment set up and ready for mass producing marijuna cigarettes... i doubt it, but who knows.

I just hope they get all the seed fragments out ;)

pnw

conceptdev
Jan 6, 2003, 04:52 AM
Drug money from cocaine is and has been fuelling vicious civil wars and domestic terrorism. If you want to see the extent of what this funding is allowing the cartels to do read this (http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0,1640,41206,00.html).

Mean while America sends a large amount of military aid down there in the form of helicopters and "advisors." More money is sent to aid paramilitaries and cartels in the form of cocaine purchases by way of the general public. If you ask people fed up with the mess down there, what would you like America to do inorder to help the answer is "stop buying this *****."

I think the PSA with the two older gentlemen is targeted towards WASP coke users and their ilk not college kids smoking the stuff their friend grew in his closet with a few lamps.

TimDaddy
Jan 6, 2003, 11:16 AM
Back when I smoked weed, most of it came from eastern KY! Kentuckians are too damned stupid to be terrorists. I'm sure a few eastern KY terrorist drug dealers have been working on their 1983 Olds Cutlass and had the battery explode on them, but other than that, I don't think they are capable of making bombs.

But really, all the commercials that show people smoking pot and wrecking their cars and running over kids only show that alcohol should be illegal. Alcohol does all the same things to you. If the government were given the choice to either ban alcohol again and lose all that tax money, or legalize marijuana, I think we know which choice they'd make.

macktheknife
Jan 6, 2003, 12:26 PM
If you don't think that drug money is creating a lot of problems throughout the world, you must be seriously misinformed. Money from heroin and opium grown in the Golden Triangle in Burma has created a class of druglords who are carving out their own fiefdoms and turning them into virtual drug factories. (Read a recent article from Time about this subject here (http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501021216-397549,00.html).) As another previous post had mentioned, cocaine money in Latin America has fueled many civil wars. The druglords are undermining Latin America's civil society and political institutions by using their money or guns to bribe or scare any opponent. Imagine if any corporation in America had its own private army to scare or kill any of its opponents (real or imagined) with impunity and undermining the liberty and freedom of people. This is the situation in many parts of the world today.

I agree that marijuana should not be classified as a Schedule 1 drug and that alcohol and cigarettes are arguably more destructive. However, do we really want to legalize something like cocaine and heroin, which are very addictive and whose effects are very harmful?

I don't know why many Americans think that legalization of drugs will necessarily eradicate the drug problem we currently have. Yes, I do believe we need to re-think how we are fighting this "War on Drugs", but do we realize the reprecussions of full legalization? A good case in point is 19th century China, where opium was legalized after the British and other Western powers won the Opium War. Millions of Chinese were turned into opium addicts, creating many economic and social problems.

solvs
Jan 6, 2003, 01:11 PM
Most of us don't want Heroin or Crack legalized (they are very dangerous, duh). But saying if you do Pot, all of these bad things will happen and you're supporting terror is just unproductive (and a waste of time and money). Oil does support terror much more than the drugs kids are doing do. Not that we should sell cocain to kids, but it's not like the target audience are actually the ones paying thousands of $$$ to have the really bad stuff manufactured and smuggled in.

I don't do drugs (well, I've tried some stuff, wasn't impressed but I speak from experiance) but I know a lot of people that do. Most of them are just trying to relax and have fun (even though some of them fast become losers, most of them aren't exactly going anywhere good anyway). Most of it is homegrown. These kids aren't gonna take these commercials seriously, and that's the point of this thread. Just saying "drugs are bad" over and over again won't work. The government in losing the war on drugs, and a lot of it is bad decisions like these.

Besides, by that logic, cigarettes and alcohol are much worse and can be considered "gateway" drugs, too.

There aren't any easy answers, but so far what they're doing isn't working.

rainman::|:|
Jan 6, 2003, 01:49 PM
like solvs said, no one here wants heroin or any of the hard drugs legalized, least of all me. Arguing that these drugs do socio-economic damage is redundant; we already know this, it's not being debated. What IS being debated is whether marijuana contributes to these problems. Marijuana import from these unstable regions of the world would not be cost-effective, it's all done locally, most of it within the US. A small amount continues to be imported from mexico and canada. It *could* be argued that marijuana does social damage to Mexico, but even if the trickle of pot that comes into the US stopped, it would hardly hurt their pot production.

Actually, the more we hear on the subject of hard drugs, the less it makes sense that pot is illegal. Why spend billions annually and endless manpower to put nonviolent marijuana users in jail, when we could be better putting those resources to use fighting the hard-drug problem within our own borders? We can't fix the rest of the world's problems if we're still contributing...

:)
pnw

lmalave
Jan 6, 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Sun Baked

Legalize marijuana, crack, heroin, oxycontin, etc and you'll have more DUIs driving around than you do now.

It'll get very dangerous to walk or drive around, watch COPS and how many idiots do you see with drugs in the car now. Now imagine if drugs were legal.

Illegal drugs are much more potent and more abused *because* they're criminalized. Teenage binge drinking has gone up dramatically since they upped the drinking age to 21 *because* it's illegal.

I mean, look, alcohol is an extremely potent and poisonous drug, and having it be legal hasn't led to the downfall of society. Why? Various reasons. But the most important one is this: most people only drink in moderation. Ultimately drugs are just a form of escapism, and anyone who wants to find some form of escapism, chemical or otherwise, is going to find it no matter what the government does. If someone has positive things going on in their life: career, family, friends - they're not going to want to fritter away precious life getting high all the time.

So legalizing drugs will NOT lead to the downfall of society - the U.S. is a workaholic, high achieving culture in general. Instead, much more damage is being done by criminalizing drugs, thus glamorizing them and supporting violent crime syndicates.

The U.S. will never, never, never, never stop the flow of drugs or get people to stop using them. Haven't we tried that already? How much is enough? If the U.S. really want's drugs to stop funding terrorism it should decriminalize them. Is money from your local liquor store going to terrorists? No, because it's a legal enterprise.


P.S. any MR members from the Netherlands care to chime in on this issue? I saw a report on Dateline NBC that called the decriminalization of marijuana and "tolerance" of heroin use an unqualified success and questioned the effectiveness of the U.S. drug war. But I'd like to hear an insider's perspective...

Sun Baked
Jan 6, 2003, 03:14 PM
I think the Travel Channel has done a tour of the drug ravaged countries that supply hard drugs.

Now those shows would be a eye opening basis for a good series of commercials.

But like the series of Red Asphalt movies for driver education, people would probably just shrug it off.

lmalave
Jan 6, 2003, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
like solvs said, no one here wants heroin or any of the hard drugs legalized, least of all me. Arguing that these drugs do socio-economic damage is redundant; we already know this, it's not being debated. What IS being debated is whether marijuana contributes to these problems. Marijuana import from these unstable regions of the world would not be cost-effective, it's all done locally, most of it within the US. A small amount continues to be imported from mexico and canada. It *could* be argued that marijuana does social damage to Mexico, but even if the trickle of pot that comes into the US stopped, it would hardly hurt their pot production.

Actually, the more we hear on the subject of hard drugs, the less it makes sense that pot is illegal. Why spend billions annually and endless manpower to put nonviolent marijuana users in jail, when we could be better putting those resources to use fighting the hard-drug problem within our own borders? We can't fix the rest of the world's problems if we're still contributing...

:)
pnw

Hey man, don't speak for me :)

I'm all for decriminalizing ALL drugs: heroin, crack, crystal meth, you name it. Keep in mind that if drugs were legal they would also become less potent. Why don't more people drink Everclear or 152-proof rum? Hey, more potent, right? More bang for the buck, let's go get TOTALLY hammered! Yeah! Why don't people in general do this? Because alcohol is legal and people are used to taking it in moderate doses. Creating a criminal element to these drugs gets people to try them, and in high doses, *because* it carries an element of danger.

I would predict that the total amount of drug use would go DOWN if all drugs were legalized, and the average potency of drugs would go waaaaaaay down. Look, in the Netherlands you can go to a cafe and legally smoke a fat joint (for probably less cash than a freakin' overpriced Starbucks frappuccino!), and yet the rate of marijuana use by Dutch teens is FAR lower than in the U.S. Why don't Dutch kids spend all their time and money toking up in these cafes? Because, in the words of one Dutch official "we've succeeded in making pot boring". Think about that one for a minute.

Would more people experiment with drugs if they were all legal? Maybe - but keep in mind that since it was legal their first try would be with a small, safe dose (since drugs and their content would be regulated like alcoholic beverages are now). And I still maintain that the number of "hard" drug users and drug addicts would go down. Yes, down. And the amount of societal damage that could be reduced, when you take into account the criminal element, is mind-boggling. I'm telling you, if we lived in a rational society at all, drugs would be decriminalized immediately.

skunk
Jan 6, 2003, 04:45 PM
Also bear in mind that if the hard drugs weren't illegal, maybe the huge profits would not be available from their distribution to destabilise and corrupt the producing countries.

satanicpoptart
Jan 6, 2003, 06:09 PM
paul- i like your style, you seem to be quite the cool guy-- you are right, in most cases selling pot isnt that profitable, average i make about 20 dollars a sale, and i dont actualy make money for buying other things, i just buy more drugs with the surplus for myself...

that one guy who compared drugs to nukes sounds like he must do alot of hunting and heavy church atending

nipsy- 40 DOLLARS FOR A FEW GRAMS OF POT? HUHBUH?
hydro for 40 an 8th
kind for 20 an 8th
swagg for 10 an 8th

alex_ant
Jan 6, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by lmalave
Why don't Dutch kids spend all their time and money toking up in these cafes? Because, in the words of one Dutch official "we've succeeded in making pot boring". Think about that one for a minute.
That's really the perfect quote. If you want to reduce drug use as much as possible, this is the route you have to take. You can't go half way and say "We'll legalize some drugs but make them more expensive" or "We'll legalize the gateway drugs but not the harder ones." You really do have to go all the way. Imagine the glamour of coke if it were sold alongside flour and baking powder for $.99 a hit at the supermarket.

Legalization makes less sense if it's accompanied by a price increase. If a drug costs $20 a hit illegally, but you want to make it cost $30 legally, that's not smart because what we're trying to do is pull the rug out from underneath the cartels and existing illegal distribution networks. The best way to do that, and the only way to do that, is with a fierce price war.

Djk515
Jan 8, 2003, 03:53 PM
nipsy- 40 DOLLARS FOR A FEW GRAMS OF POT? HUHBUH?
hydro for 40 an 8th
kind for 20 an 8th
swagg for 10 an 8th
-------------


What?

20 for an 8th of Kind bud? r u serious? it's 20 a gram around here. 50 an eighth. 65 for an eighth of hydro. dammit. Maybe it's cuz the demand around here is so high that prices stay high. But 20 an 1/8 for KB? jesus.

rainman::|:|
Jan 8, 2003, 05:14 PM
around here, schwag goes for $40/quarter and kind can easily go for $40-50 per 8th... if you can find it... which is quite rare...

there's only a handful of suppliers in iowa, and they keep prices right around that, no matter what.

Which is why people take so many roadtrips to colorado...

you know, they've made an anti-paraphenelia law here in iowa, so you can't even buy things for tobacco use. and thanks to that law, they could charge you for posession of paraphenelia for owning a salad collandar, a garden hoe, or a roll of tin-foil if the cops felt so inclined.

:rolleyes:

satanicpopart, i should look you up if i'm ever down that way :) you sound like my kind of guy...

pnw

satanicpoptart
Jan 8, 2003, 06:10 PM
my excuse is that i live in a college town, kansas university is home to alot of "art students" if you know what i mean.

Djk515
Jan 8, 2003, 06:31 PM
I live outside of Boston. the mother of all college towns. So I dunno if that's it. But that's still strange. I guess it's prolly just cuz of demand around here. Wakefield, Massachusetts (the town I live in) is far beyond the other suburbs around here in drug use. Back in 1968, Life Magazine did a story on it cuz it had the highest percentage of drug users in the nation. #1 beating out Oakland for #2. That's prolly just cuz there are only around 20,000 people here so for the percentage to go up a much smaller amount of people have to start using than in Oakland.

trebblekicked
Jan 9, 2003, 08:50 AM
many of the posts concerning legalizing hard drugs (crack/cocaine, heroin, etc) should consider this...
when i say decriminalize, i'm referring to a reduciton/elimination of judicial standard punnishment for drug users. I have one friend who suffered for years with drug addiction. It's not a pretty sight. He did three stints in jail for either selling marijuana or using cocaine. Jail time did nothing to disuade his use of cocaine. It was readlily available inside prison, and he was able to maintain his habit, which sent him back into the business upon his release.
We should treat drug addiction much the same way we treat alcoholism. They are the same disease, and should have the same treatment standards.

The "legalization" of hrad drugs is a strange issue. These are drugs that can kill a curious user, but that may only be due to the conditions the drugs are packaged in. If we had sterille labs and FDA scrutiny (i guess it would be ATF, actually), perhaps heroin wouldn't kill so many people. Remember, people overdose on alcohol all the time.

trebblekicked
Jan 9, 2003, 08:54 AM
today, the major morning news outlets (today, good morning america, etc) showed a public service announcement that runs thirty seconds and indicates that suv's and oil support terror!
the commercial follows the same format as the drug money-terror ads do, only this ad indicates oil executives, saudi arabia and iraq, and Joe Q SUV Owner in the terrorism funding ultranet.
Here is the rub:
television stations are refusing to run the ads because they are "too controversial"....

hmmmmm. anyone else smell something?

rainman::|:|
Jan 9, 2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by satanicpoptart
my excuse is that i live in a college town, kansas university is home to alot of "art students" if you know what i mean.

roflol...

hehe anyway this whole thread reminds me of a quote:

Penalties against posession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself" --President Jimmy Carter, 8/2/77

I think that sums it all up...

:)
pnw