Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

War on Drugs Responsible for recent violence

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2016 7:38:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The War on Drugs (WoD) is responsible for the tensions between the black community and the police. By voting for mainstream politicians who do not oppose the WoD (or else not voting), you are responsible for the violence and deaths of blacks and police who are suffering in this struggle. Smoking weed is very popular in black communities and even in white communities there are intrinsic negative beliefs about police based simply on their obligation to destroy the lives of those who wish to experiment. It is unlikely we will have peace until this glaring problem is resolved.

While most Americans don't care much about Mexicans, our drug war is pushing enormous amounts of money into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. By making these cartels rich, we are destroying the lives of people in Mexico. Cartels have incredible power over local communities, extorting them for the little money they have. Of course, Mexico's poor often end up fleeing to America and causing anguish to the very people who are most likely to be anti-drug: the anti-immigration crowd.

There are no laws more out-of-date and damaging to our country than drug prohibition laws; there is no policy-change that would carry more "low-hanging fruit." Drug laws are sociologically-backwards, ethically-troubling, economically-damaging, and bereft of even the simplest of logical explanations. Conversations on the subject typically entail circular-logic, blaming drug users as problematic because they cannot and will not follow drug laws. Those in the position to make minor but helpful changes will appeal to national prohibition as reasoning to resist. It is assumed that more people will use drugs if they are legal, despite the fact that anybody who wants to already will have access and those who do not wish to are not going to start just because it is now legal.

In most cases people are submitting their urine - a disgusting and dehumanizing practice - to medical professionals who probably should be using their medical skills to actually help people instead of running urinalyses. In some cases you are actually required to present your penis and otherwise undergo police-search type situations which violate basic human rights. As a paruretic I am personally-inclined to use fake urine to pass urinalyses even though I am not using drugs. But even more basic is your right to privacy - the privacy of your bodily chemistry - that shouldn't be the business of anybody else's. The slippery-slope here, combined with technological advances in the future, could be devastating if we don't set the precedent now.

Sociological advancement of our society is a slow, dragging process when the victims are not a voting majority. One additional problem for drug-users is that their status is seen as voluntary; blacks and women, for example, never choose to be blacks and women so at least it isn't their fault. Voting is inherently selfish, and unless it can be shown that the majority will benefit then there is little incentive to save minority victims. Economic arguments are therefore the only ones that gain any traction, and it will have to be demonstrated that the majority will make more money if the drug-using minority isn't causing economic inefficiency (spending money on locking them up in jail, losing the profits and taxes from marijuana sales, and lost opportunities to rehabilitate them positively so they can carry on economically-positive lives).

Our grandchildren will look back at us like we look back at our grandparents regarding issues like alcohol prohibition, women's rights, and blacks' rights. People who engage in "recreational" smoking of weed, unlike people who "recreationally" consume coffee, tea, energy drinks, alcohol, and candy, have been persecuted ridiculously for the last century and hopefully this century will be a historical enigma that will pass away leaving future thinkers curious as to how less-progressed people could have been so willfully-ignorant and callous.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 1:34:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
*clears throat*
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 1:46:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 7/30/2016 7:38:49 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
The War on Drugs (WoD) is responsible for the tensions between the black community and the police. By voting for mainstream politicians who do not oppose the WoD (or else not voting), you are responsible for the violence and deaths of blacks and police who are suffering in this struggle. Smoking weed is very popular in black communities and even in white communities there are intrinsic negative beliefs about police based simply on their obligation to destroy the lives of those who wish to experiment. It is unlikely we will have peace until this glaring problem is resolved.

While most Americans don't care much about Mexicans, our drug war is pushing enormous amounts of money into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. By making these cartels rich, we are destroying the lives of people in Mexico. Cartels have incredible power over local communities, extorting them for the little money they have. Of course, Mexico's poor often end up fleeing to America and causing anguish to the very people who are most likely to be anti-drug: the anti-immigration crowd.

There are no laws more out-of-date and damaging to our country than drug prohibition laws; there is no policy-change that would carry more "low-hanging fruit." Drug laws are sociologically-backwards, ethically-troubling, economically-damaging, and bereft of even the simplest of logical explanations. Conversations on the subject typically entail circular-logic, blaming drug users as problematic because they cannot and will not follow drug laws. Those in the position to make minor but helpful changes will appeal to national prohibition as reasoning to resist. It is assumed that more people will use drugs if they are legal, despite the fact that anybody who wants to already will have access and those who do not wish to are not going to start just because it is now legal.

In most cases people are submitting their urine - a disgusting and dehumanizing practice - to medical professionals who probably should be using their medical skills to actually help people instead of running urinalyses. In some cases you are actually required to present your penis and otherwise undergo police-search type situations which violate basic human rights. As a paruretic I am personally-inclined to use fake urine to pass urinalyses even though I am not using drugs. But even more basic is your right to privacy - the privacy of your bodily chemistry - that shouldn't be the business of anybody else's. The slippery-slope here, combined with technological advances in the future, could be devastating if we don't set the precedent now.

Sociological advancement of our society is a slow, dragging process when the victims are not a voting majority. One additional problem for drug-users is that their status is seen as voluntary; blacks and women, for example, never choose to be blacks and women so at least it isn't their fault. Voting is inherently selfish, and unless it can be shown that the majority will benefit then there is little incentive to save minority victims. Economic arguments are therefore the only ones that gain any traction, and it will have to be demonstrated that the majority will make more money if the drug-using minority isn't causing economic inefficiency (spending money on locking them up in jail, losing the profits and taxes from marijuana sales, and lost opportunities to rehabilitate them positively so they can carry on economically-positive lives).

Our grandchildren will look back at us like we look back at our grandparents regarding issues like alcohol prohibition, women's rights, and blacks' rights. People who engage in "recreational" smoking of weed, unlike people who "recreationally" consume coffee, tea, energy drinks, alcohol, and candy, have been persecuted ridiculously for the last century and hopefully this century will be a historical enigma that will pass away leaving future thinkers curious as to how less-progressed people could have been so willfully-ignorant and callous.

I agree. Most of our crime problems directly come from the drug war. Get rid of it, and gangs will no longer have a source of revenue.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,642
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2016 2:00:08 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Weed needs to stop being glorified, and drugs are an issue to be addressed. None the less, I agree with most of your sentiments expressed here. The war on drugs was as much of a failure as the war against poverty.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 12:00:20 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Nixon believed we could solve the problems associated with drugs by enforcing the laws and thus making it impossible for Americans to get drugs.
This created an illegal industry.
Young Black men who could not get a legal job, could earn money selling Marijuana. While they earned good money sometimes, some times they didn't and they had to sell drugs on the street to strangers who were sometimes cops in disguise. There were so many pushers sent to prison, that our prisons are filled past their capacity with young black men who were busted for selling weed. Now white people have invented the medical marijuana trade, stoners can get their pot using this semi-legal business.
Somehow the Blacks think this is racist
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2016 1:06:47 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Now, when you arrest a pusher and send him to jail, his customers are addicts so they will just find another pusher to buy from, so the flow of drugs won't stop. they were not able to keep the pot away from the stoners, but what they could do is put the young black men in jail, thus keeping them away from white girls. This enabled many white boys to have a girlfriend. n.b. White girls will not admit that they find Black guys more attractive then those needle-dick white boys, so we can assume they do.
Personally, what I think they should do is have shorter sentences for girls and long manditory sentences for all men.
This will encourage women to get into the drug dealing business. After they have done some time, they should be let out on parole if they do community service. The community service would be dating un-datable white men.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 12:55:33 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Thank you for the responses. Nobody really disagreed with me so I'll leave it at that I guess!
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
mc9
Posts: 1,035
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:25:34 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/13/2016 2:00:08 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
Weed needs to stop being glorified, and drugs are an issue to be addressed. None the less, I agree with most of your sentiments expressed here. The war on drugs was as much of a failure as the war against poverty.

Never go to war with a noun, you will not win -John Green