You're on the list of sympathizers Spellus! :mad:
Thanks for the tip Erik, what is this? State the obvious day? No shit the drug trafficing buissnes is evil. Was surprised by the nine figure estimate he throws up there. That seems wholly implausible. 10 million sure, I can see that, but not 100,000,000
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/12/cocaine_trafficking_horrors_users_are_complicit_in_the_atrocities_of_the.html
QuoteCocaine Is Evil
The gruesomeness of the drug trade rivals any atrocities in history.
By Erik Vance
Life and Death in The Northern Pass Family and friends attend the funerals of three female victims of a massacre that left 13 dead and more than a dozen wounded in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, in 2010. Most of the victims were between 14 and 20 years old and were attending a birthday party. They were herded into a corner of the house and executed by a firing squad. Armed men came looking for one young man, but when the patrons responded that he was not there, they opened fire.
Photo by Dominic Bracco II/Prime
I don't cover the narco war. I don't even pretend to. I'm a science writer: I go to labs, talk to scientists and policymakers, and occasionally get on boats that take me out to see cool underwater critters. I live in Mexico City, which is about as safe as living in Washington, D.C. I occasionally walk home a little drunk without worrying about my safety any more than I would have in my old home in Berkeley, Calif. And I gotta be honest, I'm happy in my little bubble.
But working here, especially on occasional jaunts to northern Mexico, you can't avoid the drug story. It's infused in every interview, every stop at a checkpoint, every street corner, like that stink you can't get out of the carpet.
Last year I reported a fishing story in Sonora that attempted to put a human face on the seafood industry and the collapse of many populations of key ocean creatures. The idea was that if consumers knew more, they might make more informed choices about what they eat, maybe selecting slightly less destructive options. I was in a relatively quiet part of Mexico in terms of violence but one that is nonetheless a crucial stopover for drugs going north. To states like California, where I'm from. My reporting partner—a photographer named Dominic Bracco who's spent his share of time amid drug violence—and I always thought it was funny that people in the area seemed incredulous that we were actually reporting about fish. Oh right, sure, "fish." We have a lot of "fish" here.
Advertisement
I remember one interview in particular in which a fisherman told us about his relative who occasionally ran drugs for the cartels in between seasons. In this area, it's not blood in, blood out. Cartels have porous edges, where people drop in when they need the money and get out as fast as possible. And we are not talking about characters from Breaking Bad here—these are poor fishermen with no other choice. And mostly they hate it.
Fishermen are great mules because they know the waters and they don't draw attention. And if you have to chuck your haul overboard to avoid the military, other fishermen can dive to retrieve it. This particular guy had a long run up the coast. In moments of dark humor, I imagine the people I know back home who do coke being on that boat with him. Any of them would have considered it the trip of a lifetime, posted photos all over the Web, and come home to great applause with wonderful stories to tell. I imagine them carrying home a couple trinkets to remember their Steinbeck-like voyage.
Fisherman Shrimpers catch a moment's rest on their pangas while fishing in the Upper Gulf of California in 2012.
Photo by Dominic Bracco II/Prime for Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting
This man did not. Maybe he endured storms and massive waves slamming his little panga while he clung for his life and prayed to get out alive. Maybe it was smooth going for a hundred miles, I don't know. What I do know is that when he got to the end and he met the men who would take the cargo across the border, they put a bullet in his head and tossed him overboard to feed the fish he should have been catching. It's cheaper to kill the mule than to pay him.
When people back home do a line of coke, they call it a "bump." It's a marvel of the English language that something so horrible, so corrosive can have such a cute little name. I wonder what that fisherman would have said to that innocuous little word. "Glad I could help brighten the party," maybe?
Not that the fisherman here are wholly innocent—many of them do meth and coke to stay awake on the water, and some have become addicted. But we all know who drives the drug trade. It's us. At our hip little parties, our New Year's Eve celebrations, our secret back rooms, and on the counters of people from well-off families who are destined for rehab.
The economics of cocaine trafficking are simple. South Americans make it, people in between move it, rich Americans buy it, and U.S. gun stores sell weapons back down the line to enforce this system. Everyone knows this.
I submit that the drug trade—and specifically cocaine—is among the worst things that the human mind ever invented (which is saying a lot, since we are especially good at inventing horrible things).
No one has good numbers on the death toll of a given drug trade. I called and asked a few think tanks how many people cocaine has killed over the past 100 years and got mostly bemused laughs. Ioan Grillo, author of El Narco: Inside Mexico's Criminal Insurgency, has thought about this as much as anyone. When I asked him, all he could guess was a number with nine figures in it.
Just for fun, let's try a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Around 60,000 were executed as witches during 150 years at the height of the Spanish Inquisition. Mexico alone has seen perhaps twice that many deaths during its seven-year drug war. From 1990 to 2010, Colombia had some 450,000 homicides, overwhelmingly due to coke. Add all the rest of Latin America (counting all the military actions that were driven by efforts to control trafficking routes as much as by politics), the U.S. share (15,000 per year on the high side, counting all kinds of drugs and overdoses and such). Now add an estimate of all the uncounted murders and overdoses and track that carnage back to the 1960s when the modern drug war began. The number starts to be in the league of the atrocities of Nazi Germany or American slavery.
Advertisement
Please, you say, not another Nazi comparison. Hitler references in the media are so cliché that Jon Stewart uses them as a running gag. But the magnitude and gruesomeness of the atrocities committed to acquire and maintain drug trade routes to the United States actually are comparable. Decapitations and burning people alive are just the start. Chainsaws, belt sanders, acid—these things are used very creatively by cartel torturers. They disembowel bloggers and sew faces to soccer balls. Children are forced to work as assassins, people are forced to rape strangers at gunpoint, and lines of victims are killed one at a time with a single hammer. Many of those people disappear into unmarked graves. If their bodies are ever found, they are described in the media with antiseptic words like "mutilated."
The place of death of three plainclothes police officers in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico 2010 The place of death of three plainclothes police officers in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, in 2010.
Photo by Dominic Bracco II/Prime
So yes, I say that paying for coke is equivalent to donating to the Nazi party. The unspoken thing here is that the reason Americans aren't more outraged or guilt-ridden is that the people dying are poor brown people—many of them in a tragic irony are classified as narcos so governments can claim it's just gang-on-gang violence.
So perhaps you can see why I sometimes feel a little silly covering the ocean fisheries crisis, telling people what's not sustainable and why. It's true, consumer choices are behind the ocean crisis. But you can eat sustainably every day of your life and give to charity every year, and it all gets wiped out with one line of coke. Who cares if you were a nice guy if in your spare time you burned witches?
We need a SLATE thread tag.
QuoteThe number starts to be in the league of the atrocities of Nazi Germany or American slavery.
dat comparison
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2014, 10:09:24 PM
We need a SLATE thread tag.
And a Jezebel.com one too. Because women, lol.
Quote from: Lettow77 on January 02, 2014, 10:15:45 PM
QuoteThe number starts to be in the league of the atrocities of Nazi Germany or American slavery.
dat comparison
:lol:
Slavery was a uniquely American phenomenon, clearly.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 02, 2014, 10:24:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2014, 10:09:24 PM
We need a SLATE thread tag.
And a Jezebel.com one too. Because women, lol.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 02, 2014, 10:24:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2014, 10:09:24 PM
We need a SLATE thread tag.
And a Jezebel.com one too. Because women, lol.
some times it fun to read it just to see the how far they can stretch the whole "patriarchy" thing.
Quote from: HVC on January 02, 2014, 10:45:17 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 02, 2014, 10:24:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2014, 10:09:24 PM
We need a SLATE thread tag.
And a Jezebel.com one too. Because women, lol.
Quote from: Ed Anger on January 02, 2014, 10:24:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2014, 10:09:24 PM
We need a SLATE thread tag.
And a Jezebel.com one too. Because women, lol.
some times it fun to read it just to see the how far they can stretch the whole "patriarchy" thing.
MISYOGINIST!
I think I have a spelling error there.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2014, 10:09:24 PM
We need a SLATE thread tag.
I'm bashing the article, so I'm not sure why that's neccessary.
I'm anint going to read that long tpost.
Let me guess"
1- You buy cocaine.
2- eventually you get caught.
3- you go to jail.
4- you got no choice but to join the Nazi party in jail so the blak don't rape your ass.
did I get it rite?
I've never touched cocaine.
Quote from: Siege on January 03, 2014, 12:17:50 AM
I'm anint going to read that long tpost.
Let me guess"
1- You buy cocaine.
2- eventually you get caught.
3- you go to jail.
4- you got no choice but to join the Nazi party in jail so the blak don't rape your ass.
did I get it rite?
No. The gyst is "drug violence is worse than Hitler".
Prohibition doesn't seem to be working. People don't feel bad for taking drugs.
Quote from: Tonitrus on January 03, 2014, 12:45:04 AM
No. The gyst is "drug violence is worse than Hitler".
More like "Hitler stopped. Stalin eventually stopped. This isn't stopping." That's par for the course for certain other Languishites, but I expected better from you. :angry:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 02, 2014, 10:37:27 PM
Quote from: Lettow77 on January 02, 2014, 10:15:45 PM
QuoteThe number starts to be in the league of the atrocities of Nazi Germany or American slavery.
dat comparison
:lol:
Slavery was a uniquely American phenomenon, clearly.
and the South was crushed for their insolence.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 02, 2014, 10:01:02 PMAround 60,000 were executed as witches during 150 years at the height of the Spanish Inquisition.
I very much doubt that. Not only did the Spanish Inquisition usually regard witchcraft accusations as a load of bullshit, but extant records suggest the institution as a whole executed about 2% of those who underwent trial, maybe 5 to 10 thousand in total.
Quote from: Iormlund on January 03, 2014, 02:21:35 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 02, 2014, 10:01:02 PMAround 60,000 were executed as witches during 150 years at the height of the Spanish Inquisition.
I very much doubt that. Not only did the Spanish Inquisition usually regard witchcraft accusations as a load of bullshit, but extant records suggest the institution as a whole executed about 2% of those who underwent trial, maybe 5 to 10 thousand in total.
Yeah, the author is confusing a couple of things.
Quote
The unspoken thing here is that the reason Americans aren't more outraged or guilt-ridden is that the people dying are poor brown people—
I don't buy this part. I don't think their skin color has anything to do with it. If instead of Mexicans and other Latin Americans, they were Frenchmen or Norwegian or other Euros, we'd be just as unconcerned. Actually, we'd be even more unconcerned, because we worry about drug violence on a large scale spilling across the border, and the Atlantic Ocean would provide a better insulation than the Rio Grande.
Quote from: dps on January 03, 2014, 04:05:24 AM
Quote
The unspoken thing here is that the reason Americans aren’t more outraged or guilt-ridden is that the people dying are poor brown people—
I don't buy this part. I don't think their skin color has anything to do with it. If instead of Mexicans and other Latin Americans, they were Frenchmen or Norwegian or other Euros, we'd be just as unconcerned. Actually, we'd be even more unconcerned, because we worry about drug violence on a large scale spilling across the border, and the Atlantic Ocean would provide a better insulation than the Rio Grande.
That and we suffer from guilt and outrage fatigue. So much to be guilty and outraged about you just get overloaded. Anyway we put a person of color in the Presidency and he doesn't seem particularly concerned about it either.
You people are amazingly competent at missing the forest for the trees.
The basic premise of the article is spot on, and incredibly important. America's drug addiction (and the resulting "war" on the same) is causing misery, death, and torment at a scale that is nearly unprecedented, and there is no end in sight.
It is criminal that we simply do not appear to care.
The author makes several errors in the pursuit of the basic point (why oh why do you need to throw in gratuitous accusations of racism?) but his basic thesis is exactly right. This is a horror story, and it should be an even bigger story, and while you can argue about the right solution (personally I think the blame should be on the "war" part, rather than on the users part), he is exactly right that people who choose to use these drugs bear some responsibility for what happens in the process of procuring them for their entertainment.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 09:08:55 AM
The basic premise of the article is spot on, and incredibly important. America's drug addiction (and the resulting "war" on the same) is causing misery, death, and torment at a scale that is nearly unprecedented, and there is no end in sight.
It is criminal that we simply do not appear to care.
Well what do you want us to do about it? It sort of looks like the population at large is starting to just throw up their hands and want to give legalization a try. The Feds seem determined to go down fighting. It kind of looks like we have political battles about this a lot, what exactly do we need to do to care more?
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 09:08:55 AM
You people are amazingly competent at missing the forest for the trees.
The basic premise of the article is spot on, and incredibly important. America's drug addiction (and the resulting "war" on the same) is causing misery, death, and torment at a scale that is nearly unprecedented, and there is no end in sight.
It is criminal that we simply do not appear to care.
The author makes several errors in the pursuit of the basic point (why oh why do you need to throw in gratuitous accusations of racism?) but his basic thesis is exactly right. This is a horror story, and it should be an even bigger story, and while you can argue about the right solution (personally I think the blame should be on the "war" part, rather than on the users part), he is exactly right that people who choose to use these drugs bear some responsibility for what happens in the process of procuring them for their entertainment.
Hell, Americans (and Canadians) apparently don't care very much about the hundreds of thousands thrown in jail or killed right here in America and Canada as a result of the drug trade. Why would anyone expect them to care about the lives of foreigners, when they seemingly don't care about their own?
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 09:08:55 AM
It is criminal that we simply do not appear to care.
Not really. If we go down this route, we have to then care about all of the terrible things that go into the process of making every day consumer goods. That seems more of a tragedy given that the majority of people have some connection to that - not so much in the use of drugs like cocaine.
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 09:51:36 AM
Not really. If we go down this route, we have to then care about all of the terrible things that go into the process of making every day consumer goods. That seems more of a tragedy given that the majority of people have some connection to that - not so much in the use of drugs like cocaine.
It takes a lot of effort to keep up with all the stuff that *should* be objectionable. I happened upon an iPhone app, Buycott, that tracks controversies with a product's company as well as it's parents/subsidiaries, and ended up finding that most corporate families are mired in some form of controversy prompting some activism.
It's so prevalent that the app's set up to have you cherrypick causes, and it'll only notify you of problems on your list (but you can still manually go find what's what with the corporate tree).
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2014, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 09:08:55 AM
The basic premise of the article is spot on, and incredibly important. America's drug addiction (and the resulting "war" on the same) is causing misery, death, and torment at a scale that is nearly unprecedented, and there is no end in sight.
It is criminal that we simply do not appear to care.
Well what do you want us to do about it? It sort of looks like the population at large is starting to just throw up their hands and want to give legalization a try. The Feds seem determined to go down fighting. It kind of looks like we have political battles about this a lot, what exactly do we need to do to care more?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FA3cEU3U.jpg&hash=45a4345d0632a3dc6c9355dfbb4985979cf4e79a) (http://imgur.com/A3cEU3U)
Buying cocaine is nowhere near as pleasurable as donating to the NSDAP.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on January 03, 2014, 10:05:31 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 03, 2014, 09:51:36 AM
Not really. If we go down this route, we have to then care about all of the terrible things that go into the process of making every day consumer goods. That seems more of a tragedy given that the majority of people have some connection to that - not so much in the use of drugs like cocaine.
It takes a lot of effort to keep up with all the stuff that *should* be objectionable. I happened upon an iPhone app, Buycott, that tracks controversies with a product's company as well as it's parents/subsidiaries, and ended up finding that most corporate families are mired in some form of controversy prompting some activism.
It's so prevalent that the app's set up to have you cherrypick causes, and it'll only notify you of problems on your list (but you can still manually go find what's what with the corporate tree).
... then, you discover from the app that the app itself was programmed by Chinese political prisoners in a re-education camp ... :hmm:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on January 03, 2014, 10:06:09 AM
Buying cocaine is nowhere near as pleasurable as donating to the NSDAP.
I love Illinois nazis.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 02, 2014, 11:41:39 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 02, 2014, 10:09:24 PM
We need a SLATE thread tag.
I'm bashing the article, so I'm not sure why that's neccessary.
To reply to this: we don't really need you to post articles from Slate for the purposes of bashing them. I'm not even sure we need articles posted from Slate that you like. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on January 03, 2014, 09:17:18 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 09:08:55 AM
The basic premise of the article is spot on, and incredibly important. America's drug addiction (and the resulting "war" on the same) is causing misery, death, and torment at a scale that is nearly unprecedented, and there is no end in sight.
It is criminal that we simply do not appear to care.
Well what do you want us to do about it? It sort of looks like the population at large is starting to just throw up their hands and want to give legalization a try. The Feds seem determined to go down fighting. It kind of looks like we have political battles about this a lot, what exactly do we need to do to care more?
Well, one thing the author of the article would like people in his particular social class to do is stop buying coke.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 09:47:26 AM
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 09:08:55 AM
You people are amazingly competent at missing the forest for the trees.
The basic premise of the article is spot on, and incredibly important. America's drug addiction (and the resulting "war" on the same) is causing misery, death, and torment at a scale that is nearly unprecedented, and there is no end in sight.
It is criminal that we simply do not appear to care.
The author makes several errors in the pursuit of the basic point (why oh why do you need to throw in gratuitous accusations of racism?) but his basic thesis is exactly right. This is a horror story, and it should be an even bigger story, and while you can argue about the right solution (personally I think the blame should be on the "war" part, rather than on the users part), he is exactly right that people who choose to use these drugs bear some responsibility for what happens in the process of procuring them for their entertainment.
Hell, Americans (and Canadians) apparently don't care very much about the hundreds of thousands thrown in jail or killed right here in America and Canada as a result of the drug trade. Why would anyone expect them to care about the lives of foreigners, when they seemingly don't care about their own?
A good point.
Seems a bit unfair to put all the blame on consumers. Surely the Latin American governments have responsibility to maintain law and order in their respective countries?
Why would we care? The West decided to abandon colonialism, instead adopting values of democracy and individualism. Civilization can't move forward with those kinds of values.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 03, 2014, 10:35:59 AM
Seems a bit unfair to put all the blame on consumers. Surely the Latin American governments have responsibility to maintain law and order in their respective countries?
The problem here is that the governments are sometimes simply overwhelmed by the criminals, who are well-funded by the drug trade. Look at Mexico.
For myself, I put the lion's share of the blame on the prohibition itself. It has had the same effect as booze prohibition, in encouraging crime and corruption.
Quote from: Monoriu on January 03, 2014, 10:35:59 AM
Seems a bit unfair to put all the blame on consumers. Surely the Latin American governments have responsibility to maintain law and order in their respective countries?
Not when the West is funding and the Chinese are arming powerful insurgent armies in their territory.
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2014, 10:41:26 AM
Why would we care? The West decided to abandon colonialism, instead adopting values of democracy and individualism. Civilization can't move forward with those kinds of values.
I don't see how democracy and individualism is necessarily opposed to colonialism.
Quote from: Berkut on January 03, 2014, 09:08:55 AM
You people are amazingly competent at missing the forest for the trees.
The basic premise of the article is spot on, and incredibly important. America's drug addiction (and the resulting "war" on the same) is causing misery, death, and torment at a scale that is nearly unprecedented, and there is no end in sight.
It is criminal that we simply do not appear to care.
The author makes several errors in the pursuit of the basic point (why oh why do you need to throw in gratuitous accusations of racism?) but his basic thesis is exactly right. This is a horror story, and it should be an even bigger story, and while you can argue about the right solution (personally I think the blame should be on the "war" part, rather than on the users part), he is exactly right that people who choose to use these drugs bear some responsibility for what happens in the process of procuring them for their entertainment.
But I don't buy or consume illegal drugs. So trying to guilt trip me about supporting Nazis or whatever does no good. Presumably if the production of some good does some sort of harm or the money is used to do some sort of harm, then the purchaser is a party to that harm. That of course would make everyone a party to all sorts of terrible things.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 03, 2014, 11:07:20 AM
Quote from: Neil on January 03, 2014, 10:41:26 AM
Why would we care? The West decided to abandon colonialism, instead adopting values of democracy and individualism. Civilization can't move forward with those kinds of values.
I don't see how democracy and individualism is necessarily opposed to colonialism.
I recommend that you think about it a little more. If a people believes that individuals have rights and should have a hand in their governance, then by what right do they hold another people in thrall? Even if they start out of a mind to colonize, they won't have the will to continue it as it must be done.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 03, 2014, 10:35:59 AM
Seems a bit unfair to put all the blame on consumers. Surely the Latin American governments have responsibility to maintain law and order in their respective countries?
The problem here is that the governments are sometimes simply overwhelmed by the criminals, who are well-funded by the drug trade. Look at Mexico.
For myself, I put the lion's share of the blame on the prohibition itself. It has had the same effect as booze prohibition, in encouraging crime and corruption.
I don't disagree, but do feel that it doesn't excuse the consumer.
There is no question in my mind that the war on drugs is what has created this violence, but that is a know quantity, and the people using drugs know (or ought to know) that is the case, and hence share some responsibility for that violence.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 11:32:59 AM
But I don't buy or consume illegal drugs.
No, but your votes help ensure that the people who do consume them are funding violent thugs instead of mega-corporations.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2014, 03:21:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 11:32:59 AM
But I don't buy or consume illegal drugs.
No, but your votes help ensure that the people who do consume them are funding violent thugs instead of mega-corporations.
I'm not making the connection here. Walk me through it.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 03:24:37 PM
I'm not making the connection here. Walk me through it.
I'm saying voters share some of the blame for the effects of policies they favor.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2014, 03:28:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 03:24:37 PM
I'm not making the connection here. Walk me through it.
I'm saying voters share some of the blame for the effects of policies they favor.
Sure. But that doesn't mean I'm voting for people to take drugs. I'm unclear exactly how much blame I deserve for people who are incarcerated for violating the law.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 04:50:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 03, 2014, 03:28:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 03:24:37 PM
I'm not making the connection here. Walk me through it.
I'm saying voters share some of the blame for the effects of policies they favor.
Sure. But that doesn't mean I'm voting for people to take drugs. I'm unclear exactly how much blame I deserve for people who are incarcerated for violating the law.
Then you're doing it wrong.
Bobo's don't do coke.
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 03, 2014, 10:35:59 AM
Seems a bit unfair to put all the blame on consumers. Surely the Latin American governments have responsibility to maintain law and order in their respective countries?
The problem here is that the governments are sometimes simply overwhelmed by the criminals, who are well-funded by the drug trade. Look at Mexico.
For myself, I put the lion's share of the blame on the prohibition itself. It has had the same effect as booze prohibition, in encouraging crime and corruption.
Yup, legalize it and hand to profits over to governments and corporate interests where they belong.
Is anyone seriously talking about legalizing coke?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 07:32:15 PM
Is anyone seriously talking about legalizing coke?
I am. I'm planning on using marijuana as a gateway drug to make almost everything legal.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 07:32:15 PM
Is anyone seriously talking about legalizing coke?
Would you do coke if it was legal?
That would take all the fun out of it.
Well, as long as it's still okay to buy electronic components from the People's Republic of China, we can do without the coke, right?
Anyway, the so typical thing is that the author focuses on the cartel's atrocities. How about focus on this: if the drug trade ended tomorrow, the economies of the Latin American countries would collapse and millions will starve as they enter a poverty even more abject than before. KICK THE HABIT.
What are you talking about?
It's a multibillion dollar-a-year agribusiness. Are we under the impression that if demand for it vanished, it would be replaced by something of equal value to the national economies it supports?
I'm not sure if these industries actually "support" the the national economy. The farmers who grow it would likely grow something else if nobody made them grow coca. They aren't benefiting much from the situation; they get bullied by the cartels, must bribe the police, and occasionally have their fields destroyed by the government. The income generated tends to go to criminals who tend to use that income to kill one another.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 07:32:15 PM
Is anyone seriously talking about legalizing coke?
Why not?
I don't particularly like the idea, but clearly prohibition isn't working, at least the way we're going about it now. Plus, there's a part of me that feels that if tobacco is legal, there isn't any recreational drug that should be illegal.
Prohibition isn't working because we are not penalizing consumption hard enough.
Put the fuckers 5 years in jail for possession of any amount or for just being high, no early release, and you'll see the success.
Why are western people so fucking weak against crime?
Hard on crime works when it is hard enough, fails when is soft (though you fags might think it is hard enough).
The fallacy is thinking you are being hard on crime when you aren't.
You heard the fags "Ah, being hard on crime doesn't work!!"
Of course, mothefucker. You are not being hard enough!
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2014, 08:03:49 AM
Prohibition isn't working because we are not penalizing consumption hard enough.
Put the fuckers 5 years in jail for possession of any amount or for just being high, no early release, and you'll see the success.
Why are western people so fucking weak against crime?
Hard on crime works when it is hard enough, fails when is soft (though you fags might think it is hard enough).
The fallacy is thinking you are being hard on crime when you aren't.
You heard the fags "Ah, being hard on crime doesn't work!!"
Of course, mothefucker. You are not being hard enough!
We already put more people in prison for drug offenses both as an absolute number and as a percentage of population than any other country in the world. The prison population (at ~2 million right now) has been growing significantly over the past 30 years, driven primarily by more people being locked up for drug offenses. How many more should we be putting in prison?
Of course, there are always excuses to not do right about drugs.
I recommend summary execution of murderers, rapists, and human traffickers, after proven guilty in the court of justice, no appeals.
That should clear up space for our drug offenders.
Also, our prison system is too lenient. We operate under the false premise of rehabilitating offenders.
Criminals don't fear doing time. Lets fix this by eliminating all their commodities and making our prison system a more secure copy of middle eastern prisons, and we would end the "war on drugs" in no time.
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2014, 08:03:49 AM
Prohibition isn't working because we are not penalizing consumption hard enough.
Put the fuckers 5 years in jail for possession of any amount or for just being high, no early release, and you'll see the success.
Why are western people so fucking weak against crime?
Hard on crime works when it is hard enough, fails when is soft (though you fags might think it is hard enough).
The fallacy is thinking you are being hard on crime when you aren't.
You heard the fags "Ah, being hard on crime doesn't work!!"
Of course, mothefucker. You are not being hard enough!
See, and it's that kind of immorality and cowardice that is typical for your kind. Putting people in jail is both useless and wrong. The only way to be tough on crime is to start hanging people.
Siege is absolutely right, we need to act more like the third world.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2014, 08:39:41 AM
Siege is absolutely right, we need to act more like the third world.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fshariaunveiled.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F06%2Fmuslim-rape.png&hash=7b40723081bfb4b8be0059b5b04d5af599fb8e9b)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2014, 08:39:41 AM
Siege is absolutely right, we need to act more like the third world.
Yep. No drugs there.
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2014, 09:06:04 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2014, 08:39:41 AM
Siege is absolutely right, we need to act more like the third world.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fshariaunveiled.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F06%2Fmuslim-rape.png&hash=7b40723081bfb4b8be0059b5b04d5af599fb8e9b)
Um didn't you just say we need to be more like the Muslims?
Siege is a closet Muslim.
Quote from: Jacob on January 03, 2014, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 03, 2014, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Monoriu on January 03, 2014, 10:35:59 AM
Seems a bit unfair to put all the blame on consumers. Surely the Latin American governments have responsibility to maintain law and order in their respective countries?
The problem here is that the governments are sometimes simply overwhelmed by the criminals, who are well-funded by the drug trade. Look at Mexico.
For myself, I put the lion's share of the blame on the prohibition itself. It has had the same effect as booze prohibition, in encouraging crime and corruption.
Yup, legalize it and hand to profits over to governments and corporate interests where they belong.
The problem is that, in some places in the third world, the drug mafia has more resources than the existing government - their penetration of what government exists is so total via corruption, that they basically are the government. So the current state of affairs is about the same as handing the profits over to government and corporate interests - only corporations and governments of a very primitive sort (that is, more like feuding chiefdoms than traditional governments and corporations), totally unaccountable and uniterested in the typical or traditional welfare-state roles of governments (providing services) and corporations (paying taxes, abiding by legal restrictions on behaviour).
An interesting popular account of this is
McMafia:
http://www.amazon.com/McMafia-Journey-Through-Criminal-Underworld/dp/1400095123
This is an interesting example of an attempt to create a scientific basis for drug regulation.
Here's a link to a PDF of an article entitled "Development of a rational scale to assess the harm of drugs
of potential misuse", which was an attempt to create some sort of science-based assessment of harms caused by various drugs:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F6424313_Development_of_a_rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_of_potential_misuse%2Ffile%2F3deec520f867c02046.pdf&ei=hRPHUuTvB8LbyQGes4DYCw&usg=AFQjCNEsKv7i0ODBso6_LW9L7NIIsBcghg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aWc
If the link doesn't work, google the title.
On page 1051 of the article there is a table summarizing the results. Experts were surveyed (physicians and psychiatrists) to rate each drug for "physical harm", "dependance" and "social harm" with a rating scale from 0 (no risk) to 3 (extreme risk). Each of those broad categories are split into three - for example, "dependence" is split into "pleasure", "psychological dependance" and "physical dependence".
The results are interesting. The mean for "dependence" for pot is 1.5. That places it well below tobacco (2.2) and alchohol (1.9). Of that, only a very small percentage is "physical dependance" (0.8) in contrast with tobacco (1.8) and alcohol (1.6). Pot is simply not very physically addictive compared with legal drugs, although it can create psychological dependence.
According to this scale, as the authors note, alcohol should rationally be treated as a "hard drug" along meth, barbituates, cocaine and heroin:
QuoteSo, if a three-category classification were to be retained, one possible interpretation of our fi ndings is that drugs with harm scores equal to that of alcohol and above might be class A, cannabis and those below might be class C, and drugs in between might be class B. In that case, it is salutary to see that alcohol and tobacco—the most widely used unclassified substances—would have harm ratings comparable with class A and B illegal drugs, respectively.
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2014, 10:59:40 AM
On page 1051 of the article there is a table summarizing the results.
Don't rush me. I'm gonna read this fucker carefully.
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2014, 10:59:40 AM
According to this scale, as the authors note, alcohol should rationally be treated as a "hard drug" along meth, barbituates, cocaine and heroin:
QuoteSo, if a three-category classification were to be retained, one possible interpretation of our fi ndings is that drugs with harm scores equal to that of alcohol and above might be class A, cannabis and those below might be class C, and drugs in between might be class B. In that case, it is salutary to see that alcohol and tobacco—the most widely used unclassified substances—would have harm ratings comparable with class A and B illegal drugs, respectively.
Somehow I suspect that alcohol's problems are not that it is so terribly addictive and harsh compared to other drugs, but rather that it is more widespread than the others by at least an order of magnitude, due to social acceptability.
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2014, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2014, 10:59:40 AM
On page 1051 of the article there is a table summarizing the results.
Don't rush me. I'm gonna read this fucker carefully.
The actual article is a whopping 6 pages long. :D
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2014, 12:58:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on January 06, 2014, 10:59:40 AM
According to this scale, as the authors note, alcohol should rationally be treated as a "hard drug" along meth, barbituates, cocaine and heroin:
QuoteSo, if a three-category classification were to be retained, one possible interpretation of our fi ndings is that drugs with harm scores equal to that of alcohol and above might be class A, cannabis and those below might be class C, and drugs in between might be class B. In that case, it is salutary to see that alcohol and tobacco—the most widely used unclassified substances—would have harm ratings comparable with class A and B illegal drugs, respectively.
Somehow I suspect that alcohol's problems are not that it is so terribly addictive and harsh compared to other drugs, but rather that it is more widespread than the others by at least an order of magnitude, due to social acceptability.
Read the article. That's not what the survey of docs and shrinks said.
I suspect it is a bit the other way around - we are just used to alcohol use and alcoholism, so we don't rate the harms from either in the same way as those from other drugs.
If someone came up with a new drug that groups of teens commonly used until they vomited or passed out, and whose use was associated with violent crimes, and that commonly lead to addiction so severe that many addict's lives were ruined, it would be banned instantly. Because we are used to booze, and it is socially acceptable, these things tend not to phase us - binge drinking, for example, is often seen as a bit of a rite of passage.
The problem is that I don't trust the docs and shrinks to be able to think rationally about the problem. It hard for me to take them seriously when they talk about treating drug policy scientifically, and their data points are the opinions of various quacks on a three-point scale.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2014, 02:19:37 PM
The problem is that I don't trust the docs and shrinks to be able to think rationally about the problem. It hard for me to take them seriously when they talk about treating drug policy scientifically, and their data points are the opinions of various quacks on a three-point scale.
Okay but just look at what Malt said. Seems pretty reasonable.
Quote from: Neil on January 06, 2014, 02:19:37 PM
The problem is that I don't trust the docs and shrinks to be able to think rationally about the problem. It hard for me to take them seriously when they talk about treating drug policy scientifically, and their data points are the opinions of various quacks on a three-point scale.
Fair enough. It is difficult to rate such things as comparable harms.
Though as a method, a survey of expert opinion is far from the worst one could do. It does accord with a lot of anecdotal evidence about the risks of alcohol use.
Quote from: dps on January 06, 2014, 03:18:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 07:32:15 PM
Is anyone seriously talking about legalizing coke?
Why not?
I don't particularly like the idea, but clearly prohibition isn't working, at least the way we're going about it now. Plus, there's a part of me that feels that if tobacco is legal, there isn't any recreational drug that should be illegal.
Cause we have enough trouble with drunk drivers?
Quote from: Siege on January 06, 2014, 08:32:05 AM
Of course, there are always excuses to not do right about drugs.
I recommend summary execution of murderers, rapists, and human traffickers, after proven guilty in the court of justice, no appeals.
That should clear up space for our drug offenders.
Also, our prison system is too lenient. We operate under the false premise of rehabilitating offenders.
Criminals don't fear doing time. Lets fix this by eliminating all their commodities and making our prison system a more secure copy of middle eastern prisons, and we would end the "war on drugs" in no time.
Well, now that we've heard from the house of Saud, do we have any sane considerations?
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2014, 03:19:54 PM
Quote from: dps on January 06, 2014, 03:18:35 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 03, 2014, 07:32:15 PM
Is anyone seriously talking about legalizing coke?
Why not?
I don't particularly like the idea, but clearly prohibition isn't working, at least the way we're going about it now. Plus, there's a part of me that feels that if tobacco is legal, there isn't any recreational drug that should be illegal.
Cause we have enough trouble with drunk drivers?
Well, bringing up DUI's would tend to support Seige's contention that we aren't winning the war on drugs because we aren't being hard enough on offenders.
You're too young to remember this, but widespread public concern about drunk driving and law enforcement taking it seriously are things that really only go back about 35 years or so. Back in the early to mid 70s and before, it wasn't uncommon for a cop to just send you on your way with a warning if he caught you driving drunk, or for people to just get a small fine (and no points) when they got caught. Even as late as 1980, one of my friends got caught driving drunk, and he went to court and pleaded it down to failure to control. They won't let you do that now--you get caught, and you're going to pay a stiff fine, and have your license suspended for a year at least. A second offense, and you lose your license for I think it's 10 years. And you know what? Those stiff penalties have significantly cut down on drunk driving.
Looking at it as a "war" is the wrong way to view things. We don't have a "war" on burglary or murder or garbon, but we have laws to restrict these things and while we still have all these terrible things, they are kept in check.
Garbon is kept in check? :unsure:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2014, 09:12:09 PM
Garbon is kept in check? :unsure:
He's kept in a special containment area known as "The Village".
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2014, 09:15:25 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2014, 09:12:09 PM
Garbon is kept in check? :unsure:
He's kept in a special containment area known as "The Village".
Garbon is not a number; he's a FREE MAN!
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2014, 09:15:25 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 06, 2014, 09:12:09 PM
Garbon is kept in check? :unsure:
He's kept in a special containment area known as "The Village".
Very odd as they let me out just about everyday. :unsure:
You only think you're out.
"The Village" extends uptown or am I just imagining that I go uptown? If the latter, I have a dreadful imagination what with my vision of Times Square and Herald Square. :(
Hey Razputin, leave Garbon alone.
He is, unlike you, a valuable member of this community.
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2014, 10:06:22 PM
"The Village" extends uptown or am I just imagining that I go uptown? If the latter, I have a dreadful imagination what with my vision of Times Square and Herald Square. :(
They use a lot of mirrors and projectors.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2014, 09:10:57 PM
Looking at it as a "war" is the wrong way to view things. We don't have a "war" on burglary or murder or garbon, but we have laws to restrict these things and while we still have all these terrible things, they are kept in check.
Incorrect
http://evoandproud.blogspot.kr/2013/06/making-europeans-kinder-gentler.html
This may surprise you, but we aren't in 12th century.