# I said it before...drug users...



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 14, 2011)

If you buy and use drugs that came from outside the USA, you are supporting terrorism and murder.  I don't care how you justify it to yourself so you can sleep at night, you have blood on your hands.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/09/14/mexico.violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



> (CNN) -- Social media users who denounce drug cartel activities along the Mexican border received a brutal warning this week: Two mangled bodies hanging like cuts of meat from a pedestrian bridge.
> 
> A woman was hogtied and disemboweled, her intestines protruding from three deep cuts on her abdomen. Attackers left her topless, dangling by her feet and hands from a bridge in the border city of Nuevo Laredo. A bloodied man next to her was hanging by his hands, his right shoulder severed so deeply the bone was visible.
> 
> ...



People talk about Muslims sending money to terrorist organizations through fake charities in the US; this is more or less the same thing.  You buy your drugs, these are the people you're buying them from, further upstream.  You are guilty in this.  Stop buying and using illegal drugs.


----------



## billc (Sep 14, 2011)

Thanks for this post Bill Mattocks.  I am going to post it and spread it around.  Thanks.


----------



## mook jong man (Sep 14, 2011)

When are the authorities over there going to get that joint under control ? , it seems like it's just one atrocity after another.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 14, 2011)

Talk about your out of control gang problems.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 14, 2011)

Well, at least im not the only Person who sees that these Narcotics all come from Somewere.
And sometimes those Places are Less than Palatable.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 15, 2011)

It's part of the reason why the drug war is a damned joke. No, seriously it is. All our resources, all our military might and everything else that could be used to stop the drug cartels outside our borders when we so boldly invade other countries that the ones closest to us are ignored. We should declare an actual war upon those cartels and take the fight to them. We've the methods of knowing who/where they are but for some weird reason don't go invade Columbia, Brazil, Panama, Mexico and all the others that send drugs our way by our southern borders. 
Oh sure, fight the Taliban on their home turf as they use Poppy/Opium plants to finance their efforts against us. But do nothing to the criminals south of Texas and in the Central and South Americas. Funny how that doesn't seem to be a priority. It's not a matter of national security enough for us to take the fight to them and eradicate them. Damn the politics that make us stay our hand and prevent our entry to those countries where the crap is grown, made and shipped out and our money is sent to them. 
Smugglers that are caught within the U.S. should be shot on sight and their heads posted on spikes lining our borders as a warning to them. Patrol the borders with Nat. Guard gunships and blast any smugglers, scouts whomever is armed. 
Sure, sure care must be taken for innocent illegals who seek to escape the violence by crossing our borders that they don't get in the crossfires. Offer amnesty to those who would show troops where these smuggler routes and hide-outs are. 
Want to stop the violence then stop them with equal and greater violence, quickly and decisively. We've the technology... use it. Then deal with U.S. growers and manufacturers afterwards. 

Maybe I'm ju$t being naive and don't under$tand the delicatene$$ of the politic$ of the $ituation that prevent$ $uch action$. Why numerous of presidents don't persuade congress to allow such actions be taken. Terrorism? What is more terrifying than the violence that is happening south of our borders?


----------



## seasoned (Sep 15, 2011)

Precisely, once someone is hooked, it is very difficult to "just say no". Politics, and vast amounts of money are involved, making it a very lucrative business. Hell, a lot of people are hooked on the legal drugs called cigarettes which generates a lot of tax money and strains our medical facilities greatly.
The cliché, "war on drugs" is hollow and useless, unless we stop fighting the effects, and start fighting the root cause.


----------



## JohnEdward (Sep 15, 2011)

Colombia went through the same thing as Mexico is now. But Mexico is worse, obviously, and is currently making the Colombian drug cartel rein of terror like a Halloween party. I hear stories like that all the time. People killed and their bodies stuffed with drugs to transport them. In the 1990s it was bad then, beheading all over the place. I remember seeing a Mexican metal band's album cover showing in side a horse stable, bales of cocaine at least 5 foot high in a semi-circle of 10-15 ft, and a man's bloody severed head on the ground. The corruption in government has always been bad in Mexico, and they are part of the problem. Dubbed as a sleeping giant, we in the US, have always been reactionary to these situations, and not proactive. Our politics to a good extent makes us that way. 


Our political system differences on this matter threatens are security in this matter.  One party wants to ignore the gorilla in the room, and not spend the money to fix the problem, and the other party is living in Disneyland wearing rose colored glasses and thinking everyone is Snow White that comes to this country. Until the problem is so prevalent to a point it can no longer be ignored and it slaps off the rose colored glasses. Like, you guessed it, it took the act of 9/11 to start taking muslim terrorism seriously.  

When we do get involved on a reactionary basis we get in neck deep, spending money and costing lives, and not stopping the problem. Rather than nipping it in the bud and being proactive on this matter, it is going to take like hundreds of Americans disemboweled hanging nude from a bridge. Cities shot up like Nuevo Leon. It has to be a National security  "crisis."  That is what is sad. 

America like other countries has an illegal drug problem, you can't cure that. You can't even talk sense into that. It is a huge problem and contributes to allot of crime as a result of illegal drugs.  Do you stop it be legalizing it or putting more thumb screws on the issue. I don't know. I don't think your ever going to stop it. You can reduce it, but would that diminish the Mexican drug cartels?  No.  You do what you do in neighborhoods to get ride of the crime. You clean the place up, change the environment. For Mexico that would mean, a sound and fair democracy, people changing their corrupt ways, people getting together for a common goal. But now the question is will that happen. Nope. It isn't in the culture or history of Mexico for that. I predict what will happen is a destruction of their country where one drug cartel wins takes all the power. Then they tone down with the violence, and after some decades of ruling as Mexico has always been ruled since the rule of the Aztecs. Being very much like the days when organized crime ran Vegas.  It will start all over again.  The caveat  and the exception is how much influence and power the muslim terrorist will gain, if they are squelched my the drug cartels the previous prediction holds. If not, and they get a strong hold on Mexico and attack us from there, it of course will be a new front in the war on terror.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

One can nod their head and blame complex factors and big governments for their lack of ability to fix the situation; but there is a bottom line.  The drug dealers sell drugs because people buy them.  If you're buying illicit drugs from outside the USA, you fund these murderers.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One can nod their head and blame complex factors and big governments for their lack of ability to fix the situation; but there is a bottom line.  The drug dealers sell drugs because people buy them.  If you're buying illicit drugs from outside the USA, you fund these murderers.


Im inclined to agree.
I find it somewhat Tragic that, for example, Heroitics spend Money not only to Dope themselves into Oblivion, but they are funding Dealers, who get their Goods from Suppliers, who may be getting their Supplies from Murderers.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One can nod their head and blame complex factors and big governments for their lack of ability to fix the situation; but there is a bottom line. The drug dealers sell drugs because people buy them. If you're buying illicit drugs from outside the USA, you fund these murderers.



Heck-those same murderers are running marijuana plantations inside the U.S., in our National Forests and parks. 

As far as drugs go, the only countries that don't have real "drug related crime" problems used one of two solutions-make drugs and their use legal or quasi-legal with restrictions, or take all the drug dealers *and* users out and shoot them, with a death penalty for drug use, possession or sale. 

First and best solution is to make the drugs legal here in the U.S.(since we're not about to use the other solution), with a variety of restrictions-some of those  murderers will become legal businessmen. Some will move onto something else or retire. The crime in Mexico won't stop, because their government is completely corrupt, from top to bottom :see who screams loudest if we were to ever try to make drugs legal, even though doing so would make the primary motivation for their current troubles evaporate-though I'm sure Mexico exports heroin and marijuana to a bunch of other places as well.

Make the drugs legal. Less drug related crime and violence, and, in the case of harder drugs, ultimately, less users-let those heroin addicts have all the pure heroin they can stand for as long as they can stand it. Talk about a death sentence.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2011)

Great point.  People shouldn't buy or use illegal drugs.  Meth is some pretty terrible stuff, and very addictive.  

However, if we legalize it, it undercuts the entire operation.  Meth IS a huge problem in America right now.  In spite of it being illegal, it is very easily acquired.  We are dealing with an epidemic of addiction and crime related to the illegal use of this drug.  We face similar problems with other recreational drugs.  If the prohibition is lifted, the drug can be regulated and the criminals lose their cash cow.

While I honestly believe that this issue has been debated to death in the Study, you brought it up again.  I don't know whether there's a one size fits all solution to this, but I believe very strongly that there are some illegal drugs that should be legalized.  I also believe that doing so will have a huge positive affect on our country.  Fewer criminals in jail for using the drug.  Fewer crimes committed in relation to acquiring the drugs.  Regulatory control on the quality and strength of the drug.  Better statistics on use and sales.  And a general decriminalization in the production, distribution and sale.  

How could I possibly know these things? We've experienced it first hand with prohibition.  It created crime.  It criminalized people who were otherwise law abiding.  It created violence in our streets where people were gunned down in cold blood.  It represented a huge loss of revenue for the government when booze went underground.  It's right there in the history books.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Great point.  People shouldn't buy or use illegal drugs.  Meth is some pretty terrible stuff, and very addictive.
> 
> However, if we legalize it, it undercuts the entire operation.  Meth IS a huge problem in America right now.  In spite of it being illegal, it is very easily acquired.  We are dealing with an epidemic of addiction and crime related to the illegal use of this drug.  We face similar problems with other recreational drugs.  If the prohibition is lifted, the drug can be regulated and the criminals lose their cash cow.
> 
> ...



This is always a fun thing to discuss.
Im going to withhold my Opinions to an extend, this isnt about Legality of Drugs, so ill make it quick.

The Criminal Organisations sorrounding Narcotics would have their Legs Dismembered by such a Law, allowing Drugs. Theyd still exist, but merely to sell things at illegal prices or resale.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 15, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> This is always a fun thing to discuss.
> Im going to withhold my Opinions to an extend, this isnt about Legality of Drugs, so ill make it quick.
> 
> The Criminal Organisations sorrounding Narcotics would have their Legs Dismembered by such a Law, allowing Drugs. Theyd still exist, but merely to sell things at illegal prices or resale.



They'd probably do just as organized crime did in this country when Prohibition ended, and move onto other vices, and whatever legitimate businesses they've invested in. The motivation for violence would be taken away, though.


----------



## granfire (Sep 15, 2011)

I do believe they are already into things like kidnapping and human trafficing...


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Sep 15, 2011)

wow! that is nuts

speaking as a former drug user and addict (drugs are bad ummkay). We need to get a handle on this and crush these organizations that are ruining this country. Ive seen good friends die because of drugs and i am tired of it

B


----------



## JohnEdward (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One can nod their head and blame complex factors and big governments for their lack of ability to fix the situation; but there is a bottom line.  The drug dealers sell drugs because people buy them.  If you're buying illicit drugs from outside the USA, you fund these murderers.



Bill that is true, I will not argue that as it is. But, you can't do that realistically. Beer for example, dates back to the 6th century. Coca  and all the other plants like mushrooms, etc. by which existed before man, where used long before the 6th century. Unless you want a dictatorship that doles out death a punishment for drug use, only than will it not be so prevalent. Even countries that have death as the punishment for drug use have low usage and it isn't completely irradiated. 

The idea Mexico's crime problem can be solved by countries populations stopping their drug abuse is really a myth and fallacy. If you know the general history of how the drug cartels came into power in Mexico, you understand what the real issue is. Which is tied to Mexico's history, social, political and economical issues, and factors. All of which have been rooted back to the coming into power and domination of Mexico by the Aztecs. The Aztecs where not highly looked up prior to there rein. Then you have Cortex, and the Mexican Revolution as major highlighted foot print examples.  Mexico isn't the US, they have extreme racial and prejudice issues plaguing their society, a mist the obvious decades of corruption, economics, do I need to go on?  All of this gave the drug cartel the same opportunity as Cortez, to gain power.  The difference is in this internal strife you have many drug cartels, fueled by drug money, not created by) competing for power. Yes, the intensity of the conflict would be less if it wasn't for the illegal drug market.  But if it wasn't drug money it would be something else. The drug cartels where initially turned to as an alley against the corrupt government. Now those same people shunned by the drug cartels are turning to middle eastern terrorist groups to take up their cause against a corrupt government, to erase the the huge gap between the rich and poor in Mexico. The worst could be yet to come.   The Mexican government abuses it's people, some of the people will turn to anyone for help, and they did. 

The issue is far more complexed than the world's appetite for illegal drugs.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> The issue is far more complexed than the world's appetite for illegal drugs.



I agree with the difficulty of curbing drug use, or of the addict's ability to just stop using drugs.  I'm not saying _"Just say no."_

What I *am* saying is that the individual illicit drug user has a *personal responsibility* for these murders.  If a person is an illicit drug user and thinks that by blaming governments, policies, enforcement, or other human issues, they are escaping from their own moral responsibility, I say they are wrong.  If one is snorting coke or smoking crack today, one is in league with these murderers.  Refuse to accept it if one wishes; but as far as I'm concerned, the illicit drug user is no better than the murderers themselves.  They might as well be pulling the trigger every time they spark up.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with the difficulty of curbing drug use, or of the addict's ability to just stop using drugs. I'm not saying _"Just say no."_
> 
> What I *am* saying is that the individual illicit drug user has a *personal responsibility* for these murders. If a person is an illicit drug user and thinks that by blaming governments, policies, enforcement, or other human issues, they are escaping from their own moral responsibility, I say they are wrong. If one is snorting coke or smoking crack today, one is in league with these murderers. Refuse to accept it if one wishes; but as far as I'm concerned, the illicit drug user is no better than the murderers themselves. They might as well be pulling the trigger every time they spark up.



Well, I doubt that there are many crack smokers on this forum....in any case, making the drug use, possession and sale _licit_ is the most viable solution.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Well, I doubt that there are many crack smokers on this forum....in any case, *making the drug use, possession and sale licit is the most viable solution.*



I'm not suggesting that any MT readers are crack-smokers.  But the part of your statement I bolded - that's a classic sidestep.  I refuse to accept personal responsibility for my actions because someone else could do something that would let me do what I want to do guilt-free.  BS.  I might as easily say that the best way to solve the problem with arson is to legalize it; then I'll feel better about my being a fire-bug.  Whether or not legalizing illegal drugs would 'solve' the problem or not is another question.  The point is that such drugs are NOT legal, and the people who use them are responsible for the consequences of their actions, including these murders.  Woulda, coulda, shoulda doesn't mean much to me in this case.


----------



## oaktree (Sep 15, 2011)

If this is true: 


> If Americans consume close to 24 million pounds of marijuana annually, that amounts to 384,000,000 ounces. If marijuana was taxed at a flat rate of $25 per ounce, that would generate close to $10 billion in tax revenue annually. $10 billion



http://hightimes.com/legal/jgettman/5867

We could use that money to help fix America's economy problems, help create jobs, lower crime rate and *gasp* stop funding terrorism.

The arguement that because you buy drugs thus you are in the same situation as murders falls in the same logic as "because you buy bottle water from a street vendor who then uses the money without you knowing he is using it to buy weapons to murder people ."

People who buy drugs are not buying *knowing or supporting murder* kinda of like paying taxes used to fund the CIA to import cocaine in America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking



> According to Peter Dale Scott, the Dirección Federal de Seguridad was in part a CIA creation, and "the CIA's closest government allies were for years in the DFS". DFS badges, "handed out to top-level Mexican drug-traffickers, have been labelled by DEA agents a virtual 'license to traffic.'"[SUP][7][/SUP] Scott says that "The Guadalajara Cartel, Mexico's most powerful drug-trafficking network in the early 1980s, prospered largely because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS, under its chief Miguel Nassar (or Nazar) Haro, a CIA asset."[SUP][[/SUP]



Bill you blame the people who buy drugs for supporting murders from Mexico try looking at US governments involvement first.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 15, 2011)

Not a sidestep. All those people that drank during Prohibition, or tended bar in a speakeasy, or even played piano in one, were just as responsible for the violence that took place. Booze was made legal, and the violence went away.

If we were to legalize arson, it wouldn't go away, and people's property would still burn down. Legalizing drugs *is* the cure to drug-related violent crime. Legal or illegal, people won't stop using them. 

BTW-while I'm not exactly with you on this, I've been peeing in a bottle since _*1986*_, and imagine I will be for the rest of my career. Not exactly a recreational  drug user, nor someone who condones it. 

Tequila, wine n' beer, though? :lfao:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Not a sidestep. All those people that drank during Prohibition, or tended bar in a speakeasy, or even played piano in one, were just as responsible for the violence that took place. Booze was made legal, and the violence went away.



Yep.



> If we were to legalize arson, it wouldn't go away, and people's property would still burn down. Legalizing drugs *is* the cure to drug-related violent crime. Legal or illegal, people won't stop using them.



I made an absurd example but the point is valid.  And in any case, the argument is worthy of having, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion.  And invoking it is exactly a side-step.  It's saying _"I don't want to talk about it, let's talk about this instead."_



> BTW-while I'm not exactly with you on this, I've been peeing in a bottle since _*1986*_, and imagine I will be for the rest of my career. Not exactly a recreational  drug user, nor someone who condones it.
> 
> Tequila, wine n' beer, though? :lfao:



I'm not going to get into comparisons of 'which is worse' or the relative merits or arguments for drug legalization.  Those who use illicit drugs have a personal responsibility for these murders, full stop.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Those who use illicit drugs have a personal responsibility for these murders, full stop.



Yes, they do. On the other hand, they're not going to stand trial for those murders, or make reparations to the families of the victims, _or stop using the drugs._ 

The best bet to keep things like this from happening-and remove the responsibility from the users-is to make the drugs legal, and eliminate the problem. It's not a side-step, Bill: it's the solution to the problem-the removal of the cause. 

If the drugs weren't illegal, there'd be no illegal activity associated with them, especially violence like this.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

oaktree said:


> The arguement that because you buy drugs thus you are in the same situation as murders falls in the same logic as "because you buy bottle water from a street vendor who then uses the money without you knowing he is using it to buy weapons to murder people ."



Nope.  The people buying and using illicit drugs are quite aware of what's happening in Mexico and the violence that has been associated with narco-terrorism since the 1980's.  Nobody ever say "Miami Vice" or "Scarface?"  It's so common they make MOVIES about it, TV shows about it.  No druggie can claim they did not know.



> People who buy drugs are not buying *knowing or supporting murder* kinda of like paying taxes used to fund the CIA to import cocaine in America



Like hell they don't know.



> Bill you blame the people who buy drugs for supporting murders from Mexico try looking at US governments involvement first.



Moral relativism.  It's the 'worse crook theory'.  Hey, I may be a mugger, but at least I'm not a rapist.  I may be a murderer, but the US government murders more people.  Well, it's not about them, it's about YOU (the drug user, not you personally). Deflect all you like; the person using the illicit drugs has personal responsibility for the murders of those people on the bridge.  CIA involved?  Sure, whatever.  NOT IMPORTANT to the end-user of the drugs.  They buy illegal drugs, they are morally equivalent to the murderers themselves, full stop.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 15, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Not a sidestep. All those people that drank during Prohibition, or tended bar in a speakeasy, or even played piano in one, were just as responsible for the violence that took place. Booze was made legal, and the violence went away.
> 
> If we were to legalize arson, it wouldn't go away, and people's property would still burn down. Legalizing drugs *is* the cure to drug-related violent crime. Legal or illegal, people won't stop using them.
> 
> ...



I honestly don't think legalization is going to be the end all answer to it. Certainly there'll always be a demand for it, yet cut off the supply, eradicate it is going to be very hard if not impossible. Alcohol still kills millions every year around the globe and yes there is still crime related to alcohol. True, not on a large scale as it was during the prohibition but car accidents, bar-fights, drunken rages and so on. 
Drugs, especially the "harder stuff" such as Meth, Cocaine, Heroin, etc. can kill a person just being in their room not bothering anyone. Either way the violence below the borders won't stop and it will eventually (and in some cases it has already) cross the borders in ever increasing incidents.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 15, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Drugs, especially the "harder stuff" such as Meth, Cocaine, Heroin, etc. can kill a person just being in their room not bothering anyone. .



And this is bad, how, exactly? I mean, I did say to let all the heroin users have all the pure they could stand for as long as they can stand it.....which'd be until they died, right?


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2011)

Here's a question for you guys.  We continue to have alcohol problems in America.  Abuse of alcohol by minors.  DUIs.  Alcoholism.  Domestic violence.  You name it.  Alcohol is destructive to society.

But would you guys endorse reinstating prohibition?  The question isn't whether or not alcohol is destructive.  The question is, do you believe a prohibition on alcohol would make things better?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> The question is, do you believe a prohibition on alcohol would make things better?



Yes.  If we could prohibit alcohol in both law and reality.

No. We could not prohibit alcohol in reality.

So, a mixed bag.


----------



## oaktree (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill as much I would enjoy to discuss it more with you I think you are to emotionally involved with this and any discussion would not be productive

 I guess we will agree to disagree.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes.  If we could prohibit alcohol in both law and reality.
> 
> No. We could not prohibit alcohol in reality.
> 
> So, a mixed bag.


You're right.  I presumed we were talking about reality.  So...  does mixed bag mean you do not believe a prohibition on alcohol would make things better?  Or does it mean you believe it would make some things better?  If the latter, what things?  What, in your opinion, would a prohibition on alcohol improve in our society?


----------



## granfire (Sep 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Here's a question for you guys.  We continue to have alcohol problems in America.  Abuse of alcohol by minors.  DUIs.  Alcoholism.  Domestic violence.  You name it.  Alcohol is destructive to society.
> 
> But would you guys endorse reinstating prohibition?  The question isn't whether or not alcohol is destructive.  The question is, do you believe a prohibition on alcohol would make things better?



prohibition was counter productive. 
abuse by minors is in fact a mini prohibition. 
Anything you put the 'ZOMG it's so BAD' label on, it becomes more interesting.

I am not saying all drugs ought to be legalized. many were in fact legal in the past, but put on the index because they are just too freaking dangerous.
Alcohol is just not one of them, or pot.


----------



## punisher73 (Sep 15, 2011)

One of the bigger more violent drug cartels in Mexico was actually trained by our own special forces and taught all our tricks. Then they decided that they could make more money by selling the drugs than enforcing the drug laws and went rogue. These guys have videos floating around of them training military style on how to kill etc. 

The other part about the drug cartels is "La Lineas" or "the lines" that they use to get the drugs into the US. The cartels are selling those secrets to muslim terrorists on how to get into the country undetected.

In law enforcement, the cartels used to send "gratis" loads through (gratis=free). They would have a truck in the caravan that was meant to get caught with a fairly large load so they could observe the methods used. Recently, those same cartels have now ordered that no more loads are to be lost and to kill any LEO you have to. This isn't some abstract concept or hyperbole of how dangerous these cartels are. They are already here and bringing the violence with them. 

Look at Ciudad Juarez and where it lies in relation to the US/Mexican border and you will understand why it is such contested territory. Now, look at the US side and how many major highways branch out from there to large US metropolitan cities on both the east and west coast.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> You're right.  I presumed we were talking about reality.  So...  does mixed bag mean you do not believe a prohibition on alcohol would make things better?  Or does it mean you believe it would make some things better?  If the latter, what things?  What, in your opinion, would a prohibition on alcohol improve in our society?



By 'mixed bag' I believe some things would be made worse, some better.

It is my understanding that alcohol is a factor in almost half of all traffic accidents.  Since I presume that at least some people would obey the law and refrain from drinking alcohol under a new Prohibition, I would also presume that alcohol-related traffic accidents and deaths would be reduced as well.  I am also under the understanding that alcohol overuse has a significant impact on health care costs besides just traffic accidents.  And I would presume that under a new Prohibition, those who continued to use alcohol and were involved in traffic accidents could be punished and/or removed from the highways at a higher rate than DUI drivers currently are.  I would see these as positive effects.

I understand that there is a federal excise tax on alcohol intended for consumption, so that would be eliminated as a source of revenue.

There would be a near-immediate increase in organized crime surrounding importation and distribution of now-illegal alcohol.  Enforcement costs would rise, violence would rise, and so on.

If I had to guess, I would suppose that there would be a fairly large percentage of scofflaws regarding a new Prohibition.  Personally, I think that laws which are ignored by most citizens tend to degrade the entire concept of society and law & order.

I would see these as negative effects.

So, yes, 'mixed bag'.

Personally, I loved my booze, but I gave it up when I got diabetes.  So it would have no effect on me.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> By 'mixed bag' I believe some things would be made worse, some better.
> 
> It is my understanding that alcohol is a factor in almost half of all traffic accidents.  Since I presume that at least some people would obey the law and refrain from drinking alcohol under a new Prohibition, I would also presume that alcohol-related traffic accidents and deaths would be reduced as well.  I am also under the understanding that alcohol overuse has a significant impact on health care costs besides just traffic accidents.  And I would presume that under a new Prohibition, those who continued to use alcohol and were involved in traffic accidents could be punished and/or removed from the highways at a higher rate than DUI drivers currently are.  I would see these as positive effects.
> 
> ...


To address the traffic accident point, driving drunk is already illegal.  I don't understand your logic there.  

Regarding health care costs, we can see that prohibitions don't keep people from using the drug.  We are already dealing with the health care costs associated with illegal drug use.  

I think your comment about laws which are ignored is extremely insightful, and we've seen that prohibiting use does not significantly stop use.  Over 1/3rd of our country uses or has used Marijuana.  We HAVE a serious addiction/abuse problem with heroin, meth and other illegal drugs.   As I said before, the issue exists, as it would continue to exist with alcohol were it banned.

And we can also see from history that banning drugs leads to more dangerous versions of drugs on the street.  When is the last time someone went blind or died from drinking incorrectly distilled liquor?  It's unheard of now, but wasn't uncommon when people made "bathtub gin."


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> To address the traffic accident point, driving drunk is already illegal.  I don't understand your logic there.
> 
> Regarding health care costs, we can see that prohibitions don't keep people from using the drug.  We are already dealing with the health care costs associated with illegal drug use.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I had a guess you were leading up to a gotcha.  I decided to just let you take me where you wanted me to go.  Thanks for getting to the point.

With regard to traffic accidents, I said that I presume as least some people will obey a prohibition on alcohol.  If any do, then those are the ones who won't be getting tanked after work at the bar and driving home drunk.  Some people will continue to find ways to get their booze, and of course, will continue to play a role in traffic accidents.  So that's my logic that you don't get.

Regarding health care costs, I did not say we would not have to deal with health care costs related to alcohol under your hypothetical prohibition.  I said that since we can presume that some (call it 'X' percent) of people would obey a prohibition law, we might experience lower health care costs related to alcohol.  That's just a simple deduction based on an assumption that the hypothetical prohibition will have at least some percent of citizens who obey it.  If no one obeys it, then no, there will be no reduction in costs on a logical basis.

I think you don't have a firm grasp of history or distilling if you think a lot of people died from 'improperly distilled' liquor.  Adulterated liquor, perhaps, but even then, I'd guess the percentages were pretty low compared to the number of illicit drinkers.

In any case, you asked my opinion.  I gave it.  _I can't be wrong or right; it's an *opinion*._  I knew it was a set up, but that's OK.  I guess you have some feeling of victory, fine with me.

I still have an opinion; mixed bag.  I can't say that I understand what your point is.  I simply am not arguing that illicit drugs should or should not remain that way, so arguments to me about that are meaningless in this thread.  I simply state that if a person is using illicit drugs, they have a personal responsibility for the murders being committed by the drug dealers.  That's a simple statement.  I agreed with Jeff that during Prohibition, people who bought booze were just as responsible for the violence and murders committed by the organized crime families that imported booze.  I'm not drawing any distinctions between illegal booze and illegal drugs as far as that goes.


----------



## JohnEdward (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with the difficulty of curbing drug use, or of the addict's ability to just stop using drugs.  I'm not saying _"Just say no."_
> 
> What I *am* saying is that the individual illicit drug user has a *personal responsibility* for these murders.  If a person is an illicit drug user and thinks that by blaming governments, policies, enforcement, or other human issues, they are escaping from their own moral responsibility, I say they are wrong.  If one is snorting coke or smoking crack today, one is in league with these murderers.  Refuse to accept it if one wishes; but as far as I'm concerned, the illicit drug user is no better than the murderers themselves.  They might as well be pulling the trigger every time they spark up.



Sorry I missed that. Agreed. And very true. I feel the same thing. I can't look at someone who does illegal drugs and not see blood on their hands. They are part of the drug cartels, organized crime, and yet they shun any personal responsibility.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2011)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondc












Just a couple of the slides from the Office of National Drug Control Policy.  Prohibition isn't keeping anyone from using the drugs who wants to use them.  

According to the CDC, 8.7% of people 12 and over have used an illicit drug _in the past month (2009)

_As of 2009, over 95 million adults in America admitted to having smoked marijuana at least once in their lives.  Over 22 million have smoked weed within the last year and over 8 million consider themselves to be "chronic" users at over 100 times per year.  

These are laws which are being ignored.  And the cost to our society is very, very high.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2011)

Gotcha?  Dude, I'm not trying to trick you.  I'm trying to articulate a point.  I have more respect for you than to play rhetorical games, and frankly, it pisses me off that you would think otherwise.  

Have I been other than clear?  Unlike you, I can admit when I'm arguing from emotion.  I believe you're wrong.  I believe your opinions are based on emotion and not fact.  I believe you are being inconsistent and illogical.  And I'm totally okay with it if you would just admit it and be up front about it.   But you won't.  You insist on dressing your emotional rhetoric up in pseudo logic.  Frankly, this looks terrible on you, who are usually a consistent voice of reason and opinion tempered by objective consideration.  

That you didn't see where I was headed is just more evidence to me that you aren't thinking clearly on this subject, because I wasn't being subtle.  Nor was I trying to be.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I believe you're wrong.



About what?  I have stated that illicit drug users have a personal responsibility for the murders being committed by the drug dealers who supply the drugs they demand.  You've responded with questions and then statements illustrating your belief that prohibition doesn't work.  I don't really care if prohibition works, so if you think I'm 'wrong', I have to ask again, about what?



> I believe your opinions are based on emotion and not fact.  I believe you are being inconsistent and illogical.  And I'm totally okay with it if you would just admit it and be up front about it.   But you won't.  You insist on dressing your emotional rhetoric up in pseudo logic.  Frankly, this looks terrible on you, who are usually a consistent voice of reason and opinion tempered by objective consideration.



I didn't dress up anything in logic, pseudo or otherwise.  I stated my opinion about something.  I stated why I have that opinion.  You then asked my opinion about a completely different subject, and I answered you, even though I sensed your agenda.  You then told me my logic and opinion were 'wrong'.  Well, my logic may be wrong (about the topic you created), but you haven't demonstrated it, you have just taken a half-hearted jab at it and then announced that I'm wrong.

With regard to my first opinion, about the responsibility that illicit drug users have for the murders committed by drug dealers, I didn't offer any logic at all; I stated an opinion and I think I was relatively clear about that.



> That you didn't see where I was headed is just more evidence to me that you aren't thinking clearly on this subject, because I wasn't being subtle.  Nor was I trying to be.



I think you're having some trouble understanding the difference between an opinion and a theory.

I don't like peach pie.  That's my opinion.  I did not offer a theory that peach pie is objective 'bad', just the opinion that I don't like it.  You ask me how I feel about cake, I answer, and you proceed to demonstrate how cake is actually good for you, and everybody ought to like it.  Then you tell me I'm wrong about peach pie; your devastating logic has just proved *I have to like it*.  

*I can't be wrong* about my opinion, I don't like peach pie; simple statement.  I'm allowed to not like peach pie.  It's not emotional, and it's not based on a rational or logical argument.  Me. No. Like. Peach. Pie.

I have an _opinion_.  You are offering a _theory_ on a completely different subject and suggesting that your facts, if correct (and I do not concede they are) require me to revise my opinion.  They don't.  Nor have I ever said that my opinion was based on science, logic, or proof of any kind.  It's my opinion.  I don't like peach pie, and I think illicit drug users have personal responsibility for the murders committed by drug dealers who supply what they demand.  I have not argued that drug prohibition is good, bad, or that legalizing drugs would be a good thing or a bad thing for society; not in this thread, anyway.  So how is it that my logic is bad for something I'm not taking a position on?


----------



## Monroe (Sep 15, 2011)

I had a serious drug problem when I was 15. It went on for about a year and it was messy. The world was overwhelming enough at the time without taking on responsibility for drug cartels in the Americas. Most drug addicts start when they're kids. Do you really want to blame emotionally crippled and immature drug addicts for organized crime? Most will quit or die before they're 30 anyway.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2011)

Are you honestly, seriously, at this point trying to suggest that your preference for or against peach pie is the same as your position against repealing the ban on marijuana?  And you are accusing me of playing games.  Come on.  

At least now you're being open about your opinion not being based on science, logic or proof of any kind.  Whew.  That's all I ask.  You can be as inconsistent and illogical as you'd like as long as you are willing to admit it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Are you honestly, seriously, at this point trying to suggest that your preference for or against peach pie is the same as *your position against repealing the ban on marijuana*?  And you are accusing me of playing games.  Come on.



What is my position against repealing the ban on marijuana?  Have I said one word about that in this thread?  Maybe you're arguing with someone else and think it's me?  Maybe you're referring to some other thread, where I've admittedly expressed my strong anti-drug opinions?  All I've said in this thread is that* illicit drug users have personal responsibility for the murders committed by the drug dealers who supply their demand*.  In what way is that taking a position pro or con with regard to repealing marijuana bans?



> At least now you're being open about your opinion not being based on science, logic or proof of any kind.  Whew.  That's all I ask.  You can be as inconsistent and illogical as you'd like as long as you are willing to admit it.



I'm saying the same thing I started out saying.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What is my position against repealing the ban on marijuana?  Have I said one word about that in this thread?
> 
> Maybe you're arguing with someone else and think it's me?  Maybe you're referring to some other thread, where I've admittedly expressed my strong anti-drug opinions?  All I've said in this thread is that* illicit drug users have personal responsibility for the murders committed by the drug dealers who supply their demand*.  In what way is that taking a position pro or con with regard to repealing marijuana bans?
> 
> ...


Oh.  I forgot.  On this board, we're supposed to pretend that each thread is its own little world of discovery.  Your position on this thread is filtered through your past posts on the same subject. 

I've posted often about energy dependence.  If I post an article on battery technology, of course I would expect people who are familiar with my body of posts to consider my well established position on foreign oil dependency, whether I specifically reference it or not. 

Once again, Bill, when it comes to this subject, you play lots of the same games you routinely and appropriately call others on in the Study.  This "I didn't say it in this thread" game is yet another one.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Oh.  I forgot.  On this board, we're supposed to pretend that each thread is its own little world of discovery.  Your position on this thread is filtered through your past posts on the same subject.
> 
> I've posted often about energy dependence.  If I post an article on battery technology, of course I would expect people who are familiar with my body of posts to consider my well established position on foreign oil dependency, whether I specifically reference it or not.
> 
> Once again, Bill, when it comes to this subject, you play lots of the same games you routinely and appropriately call others on in the Study.  This "I didn't say it in this thread" game is yet another one.



Fair enough.  Then your argument is that the position I've held in previous threads is incorrect.  OK, we disagree, but at least we're talking about the same thing now.  Maybe you could have told me that you were arguing with a position I've taken in the past with regard to drug legalization instead of bizarrely arguing that my current statements are incorrect because of the logic you offer against my previous, different, statements.  Kind of confusing.


----------



## Steve (Sep 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Fair enough.  Then your argument is that the position I've held in previous threads is incorrect.  OK, we disagree, but at least we're talking about the same thing now.  Maybe you could have told me that you were arguing with a position I've taken in the past with regard to drug legalization instead of bizarrely arguing that my current statements are incorrect because of the logic you offer against my previous, different, statements.  Kind of confusing.


Okay.  If accepting the blame is all it takes, I'll gladly do so.  I tricked you.  It's all part of my master plan.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 16, 2011)

I have enjoyed reading the opinions here and most are well-considered and well formed indeed.

Regarding legality, my logic is simple, perhaps simplistic. While I appreciate the logistics of repeal are albeit impossible now, the legality of tobacco and alcohol still provides for us the longest running precedent for the making legal of narcotic, stimulant, hallucinogenic and other substances that are traded and abused illegally.  Anything other than legalisation of *ALL*, -_or_- complete prohibition of *ALL *of these substances is hypocrisy on the part of our policy makers. And but then, what are all of our masters and commanders if not hypocrites.

Regarding the OP point of users of illicit drugs having blood on their hands, in my experience, sadly there are few among them who have a mind to care.  I have found that drug abuse (Class A substances in particular I mean) is a wholly egocentric affair.  Those that partake become so conditioned as to have little regard for the consequences to theirselves or anyone in their proximity let alone someone existing in another supplying nation.  For a serious drug abuser, nobody else exists but them, therefore an appeal to rationality and their inbuilt suppressions of conscience, while thoroughly commendable and laudible, can only fall on deaf ears.

I would go further though and question the notion that substances (opiates and derivatives for example) that are "obtained fairly and legally" _by _our nations _for _our nations' use are acquired under anything but fair or legal trading rules.  I am guessing that is another argument altogether though.


----------



## Steve (Sep 16, 2011)

Regarding the point of the OP that users of illicit drugs have blood on their hands, I'd argue that there is no one on these boards who doesn't in some way knowingly benefit from the misery and pain of others.  Whether it's to purchase cut rate clothing from WalMart knowing that sweat shops exist, or buying diamonds from Shane Co, or coffee or petroleum or drugs.   There are things we choose to ignore provided that by the time whatever it is reaches our hands it's been thoroughly sanitized, packaged and dressed up so that we can feel good about it.  Ignorance is bliss.  

Statistically, over half of the people on this forum between 18 and 50 have smoked weed at least once, and a little less than 1 out of 4 smoke it at least a couple times per year.  As Bill Mattocks said, "Personally, I think that laws which are ignored by most citizens tend to degrade the entire concept of society and law & order."  I agree.


----------



## Monroe (Sep 16, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Statistically, over half of the people on this forum between 18 and 50 have smoked weed at least once, and a little less than 1 out of 4 smoke it at least a couple times per year.



How many people buy and grow marijuana legally with medical allowances? I know 2 people who legally grow their own. One for back pains and one for headaches.Not sure that was the intention of Canadian law.  But they aren't supporting organized crime.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 16, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Regarding the point of the OP that users of illicit drugs have blood on their hands, I'd argue that there is no one on these boards who doesn't in some way knowingly benefit from the misery and pain of others.  Whether it's to purchase cut rate clothing from WalMart knowing that sweat shops exist, or buying diamonds from Shane Co, or coffee or petroleum or drugs.   There are things we choose to ignore provided that by the time whatever it is reaches our hands it's been thoroughly sanitized, packaged and dressed up so that we can feel good about it.  Ignorance is bliss.



Agreed; but although we as human beings are (in my opinion) responsible for knowing to the extent possible, the origins of the things we buy and responding accordingly, the things you mentioned, with the exception of illicit drugs, are legal at the point of sale.  I accept your point about them still being blood-stained.



> Statistically, over half of the people on this forum between 18 and 50 have smoked weed at least once, and a little less than 1 out of 4 smoke it at least a couple times per year.  As Bill Mattocks said, "Personally, I think that laws which are ignored by most citizens tend to degrade the entire concept of society and law & order."  I agree.



People break laws all the time.  The question is, what do they do about it when they discover that their actions today support people who hang innocent people from bridges, disemboweled?  If they still choose to buy those drugs, I strongly believe they are have a degree of personal responsibility for the murders as if they had committed them themselves.  They know the murders are being committed by the drug dealers and they still choose to buy illegal drugs.  They have a choice; they can stop buying drugs.


----------



## Cyriacus (Sep 16, 2011)

Monroe said:


> How many people buy and grow marijuana legally with medical allowances? I know 2 people who legally grow their own. One for back pains and one for headaches.Not sure that was the intention of Canadian law.  But they aren't supporting organized crime.



If someone Legally Purchases a Revolver, and then plays Russian Roulette, who do you blame?

Everyone, really.

So whilst your Friends dont Exploit the System, some People do.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 16, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Statistically, over half of the people on this forum between 18 and 50 have smoked weed at least once, and a little less than 1 out of 4 smoke it at least a couple times per year.  As Bill Mattocks said, "Personally, I think that laws which are ignored by most citizens tend to degrade the entire concept of society and law & order."  I agree.


I am conceitedly proud then to be in the other half of those on the forum: a card-carrying, non-smoking, non-drug-using, never taken alcohol, never intentionally caused myself to be a burden on the health service (yet pay for others that do) citizen. I buy as ethically as I can afford and try not to be cruel to animals.  Yet where does that get me?  Lost in the midst of - and paying admirably for apprehending and prosecuting and treatment and rehabilitation of those drug abusers that would not only step metaphorically over the bodies of distant shore cartel victims to chase their dragons and but who would literally step over their own mothers for the same futile hope of a pleasure they can never attain.  I am sorry to sound harsh on drug abusers.  I am more sorry for the rest of society that must - in any one of a dozen ways - bankroll their habits.


----------



## Monroe (Sep 16, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I am conceitedly proud then to be in the other half of those on the forum: a card-carrying, non-smoking, non-drug-using, never taken alcohol, never intentionally caused myself to be a burden on the health service (yet pay for others that do) citizen. I buy as ethically as I can afford and try not to be cruel to animals.  Yet where does that get me?  Lost in the midst of - and paying admirably for apprehending and prosecuting and treatment and rehabilitation of those drug abusers that would not only step metaphorically over the bodies of distant shore cartel victims to chase their dragons and but who would literally step over their own mothers for the same futile hope of a pleasure they can never attain.  I am sorry to sound harsh on drug abusers.  I am more sorry for the rest of society that must - in any one of a dozen ways - bankroll their habits.



And you know what exactly about these individuals and their lives? I hate to generalize but a few experiences have taught me some empathy. Sit through a group therapy session and you'll see people who grew up in foster houses and group homes and abusive situations and aren't well adapted to life in general. We have sterile names for their experiences that make it difficult to conceptualize what exactly it is that happened. Abuse, sexual assault, battery, etc... What exactly is being referred to? What happened to the victim in these incidents? What degrading acts were perpetrated? You ever look at one of those maps of all the child sex offenders in your neighbourhood and ever wonder what happened to those kids? What about all those kids that didn't tell anyone whose abusers don't show up on those maps? 

All things being equal, yeah, sure they're dirt. But no kid says they want to be a crack whore when they grow up. Something happened at some point that brought them to have so little value for their lives that they'd rather be so high they piss themselves than be sober and deal with reality. You make it sound like they're actually having fun.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 16, 2011)

Please do not call me out on what I know about those who abuse substances.

Nobody is forced into drug use.

Likewise, excluding those poor and horribly tragic infants born of addict mothers, there can be very very few who can claim they had no education regarding the ill effects of drug abuse.  

There is invariably a background to drug abuse as there are to most human behaviours.  However, illicit drug use that precipates abuse is a choice.  There are always choices.  Among drug abusers unfortunately, there has at that crucial point in their history been no will to seek out those choices.


----------



## Monroe (Sep 16, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Please do not call me out on what I know about those who abuse substances.
> 
> Nobody is forced into drug use.
> 
> ...



Of course, it's the huge conscious moment when they decide to be a drug addict. @@ Not to say they need a hug fest, but I see zero value in demonizing them. And you called yourself out when you referred to yourself as "conceitedly proud" of clean living.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 16, 2011)

Yes there is a choice at first, but, once the hooked stage is over, and I don't know how long that is, the choice is not yours anymore. At that point you need some form of intervention. Now I'm talking hard core drugs above, not pot, that just gets you hooked on food, but could lead to other stronger things. With pot there *is* a choice. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 16, 2011)

On the subject of addicts being able to quit...

I realize that everyone is different, but people do make the choice to quit using things they're physically addicted to; this is proven because people *have* made those choices.  From cigarettes (which I gave up) to heroin and everything in between.  Some people may find it much more difficult than others, I don't dispute that.  Some may never be able to bring themselves to choose to quit, but they still possess the choice.  Can they choose to quit?  Yes.  Will they?  That is a different question.

I do not take the position that people who choose not to quit are weak or bad people or simply lack willpower or whatever.  I do not disparage them or make light of the difficulty of the choice.  But I also do not simply shrug and say _"Well, some people can't quit."_  Yes, they can.  *They choose not to*, for a variety of reasons, and for some of them, it may seem very much as if they cannot make that choice to quit.  But while they still draw breath and are conscious, they can.

There are people who have died from the effects of withdrawal.  The recent death of that pop singer might have been one such case.  That does not mean she did not have the ability to make the choice to quit; it does mean that quitting may have killed her, which is a very different thing.

Anything that is physically possible for me to do, I can choose to do.  That doesn't mean I **will** choose to do it, but I do have the option.  I cannot become an astronaut or a professional baseball player.  But I can lose weight, I can get in shape, I can quit smoking (did that years ago), I can stop drinking alcohol (did that when I was diagnosed with diabetes), and if I were a user of illicit drugs, I could choose to quit using them.  That choice might mean getting help from outside if I could not manage to do it on my own; but the choice would be mine to make - or to not make.

People who are addicted to illicit drugs are victims in many ways.  Many of them have very tragic backgrounds and life histories that make me have great sympathy for them and their circumstances.  I cannot say that were I in their shoes, I would not have ended up just like them.  But they choose to continue to abuse drugs; or to quit if they want to take that step.  Hard?  Yes.  Possible?  Also yes.

What I have learned about is something that makes more sense to me; something I believe is termed a _'live choice'_.  That is, a choice that a person both can make and might make.  In other words, an addict can choose to quit using drugs; but many will not do so in practice.  If you bring it up to them, they reject it as an option.  It's not that they cannot quit, it's that they will not make that choice under any circumstances.  The choice is not a 'live choice' to them because it seems not possible in their world, in their circumstances.  It still does not mean that they have no choice.


----------



## JohnEdward (Sep 16, 2011)

A little harsher view point.  Drug abuse isn't initially something we need. It is something humans are susceptible to, because there are addicts of various forms addicted to various drugs.  The point at which a person does drugs as an adult is a clear undeniable choice, and I think we are far too soft socially on addicts. I am not talking stoning, or anything extreme. Getting tough on people is better than soft. Being soft grants a social permission of acceptance. We should not make it acceptable for people to start using drugs. We should not glorify or romanticize abuse, we should not look at it as a disease.  It is a choice. A poor choice. A choice that connects the user to violent crime and its propagation. Such as, drug cartel power and heinous murders to spousal and family abuse.  The 60s are over and that experiment failed. Let's not pamper it, let's not be soft on it. Let's look at the truth, once you take an illegal drug you have contributed to the spread of the heinous side of humanity.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 16, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What I *am* saying is that the individual illicit drug user has a *personal responsibility* for these murders.



Does the guilt by association extend down the chain to the action of other drug users as well?  Or are individual drug users only responsible for the crimes committed by the people who sell them drugs?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 16, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Does the guilt by association extend down the chain to the action of other drug users as well?  Or are individual drug users only responsible for the crimes committed by the people who sell them drugs?



Look at it this way.  Drug sellers only have a market because there are drug buyers.  The demand is so high that the sellers will commit any crime, no matter how heinous, to get those drugs to the buyer.  If the buyers don't buy, the sellers have no one to sell to.  Period.

Are buyers also responsible for the acts of other buyers, who may commit crimes themselves?  Not in the personal way they are with the sellers.

But I'm not entirely clear what your point is with this question.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2011)

All I'm wondering is how broadly this applies. In philosophy, ideas are reasoned from first principle, so if it applies here, it applies everywhere. The idea that moral obligation follows the spent dollar is something that many people bring up, but they aren't willing to apply it broadly. I'm curious where you stand on this. In my experience, people who refuse to apply their principles broadly out themselves as hypocrites and invalidate their arguments.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Jenna (Sep 17, 2011)

Monroe said:


> Of course, it's the huge conscious moment when they decide to be a drug addict. @@ Not to say they need a hug fest, but I see zero value in demonizing them. And you called yourself out when you referred to yourself as "conceitedly proud" of clean living.


I think it is facetious to suggest that someone would in some way proactively _decide _to become a drug addict? Anyway, at least this is far from my experience.  Regarding my conceit, no, it is not of clean living; my conceit is of having had the savvy to make commonsense decisions where the choices were presented to me concerning both addicting substances and also addicting prescription SSRIs.

My point, if you are concerned for pragmatism, is that it remains the choice of every pre-addicted, try-this-joint-for-size drug user to decide whether to imbibe the drug or not.  Further, this choice is made with the knowledge of the potential for addiction.  

If you decide to **** around with narcotic substances to escape an unbearable reality then that is your choice.  I will lend my support to your right to that choice.  Though by that token, must you not also support my right NOT to rescue you with tax revenue when you hit the bottom?  Or should I have pity upon you at that stage?  The point is moot for me unfortunately I guess due to my elected representatives' civil duties to never provide me with that opt out.  Oh well, knock yourself out.  I guess I will be for you here after all with my not-so-easily earned supporting tax revenues.

I think what is more pertinent however is that at the point at which you have that loved-up hedonistically charged night of epiphany (or conversely that hideous cortisol-imbalanced nightmare of pre-suicidal depression - and yes, this is me personally speaking if you care to know), where you decide, yes I am going to light up (or use whichever delivery vehicle you prefer) it is at that very point, ALSO your choice to seek solutions ELSEWHERE.  Those solutions in their myriad forms will 1. have a far greater effect on actually helping you from your pit of despair or whatever pit it might be (though I fully appreciate that many recreational users are blissfully ignorant of where their train is heading) and 2. will cost me far less in tax revenue than would subsidising your potential police and court proceedings, protracted medical treatments and tiresome rehab cycles.

We live in nations that are governed by free market concepts which extend even beyond our current legalities.  Where there is a demand for a product no matter the legitimacy of that product, there will be supply to fulfil it.  As Bill Mattocks has stated, lacking demand renders supply uneconomic.  Drug peddlars are not here to satisfy the desperate seeking urges of addicts and but rather to chase profit.  Yet for all the money pumped into the education surrounding the hideous effects of drug abuse, still there are those that will take the choice to try it out.  That choice is theirs.  It is their life.  However, I also have my life to live and seek as little part as possible in supporting those that have DELIBERATELY not accidentally made moronic and supremely ill-advised choices regarding substances.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 17, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> All I'm wondering is how broadly this applies. In philosophy, ideas are reasoned from first principle, so if it applies here, it applies everywhere. The idea that moral obligation follows the spent dollar is something that many people bring up, but they aren't willing to apply it broadly. I'm curious where you stand on this. In my experience, people who refuse to apply their principles broadly out themselves as hypocrites and invalidate their arguments.
> 
> Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk



Ah, now I understand.  In this issue, I'm not sure how broadly I can apply the logic.

The examples have been given by others in this thread of people who buy 'blood diamonds' and other goods and services which have, or may have, a bloody or criminal history.  And I agree that moral responsibility does attach where one is aware of these things.  I also agreed that those who bought alcohol during Prohibition were likewise morally responsible for the violence that organized criminal organizations engaged in.  I could think of some others; so-called 'victimless crimes' like prostitution, particularly where it involves human trafficking and children.

So that's about as 'broad' as I'd feel comfortable going.

However, I pointed out that with the exception of Prohibition and my own example of prostitution, the products and services are both legal and 'uncertain' in origin in many cases.  For example, one buys a diamond.  Is it a 'blood diamond'?  There are a variety of ways in which one might find out the likelihood that it is; but even with due diligence, it can be hard to know for certain.  I would say that a person should do that kind of due diligence, but I would not necessarily say that a person who doesn't bears a moral responsibility for the carnage created by diamond smugglers; there is a difference between knowing and suspecting.

Imagine this; you go to the flea market and someone is selling counterfeit DVD movies.  A couple of bucks each.  Great, right?  And who is hurt, some fat-cat motion picture studios?  Who cares?  But the counterfeiting organizations are run by a variety of organizations from rogue nations to terrorist organizations.

http://www.michiganjb.org/issues/1/article4.pdf

What's the moral responsibility there?  Well, in my opinion, it's there, but more so if a person is aware of what their dollar is going to finance.

And this is where I turn to illegal drugs.  With few exceptions, illicit drugs come from criminal organizations.  There are some that may be created by lone individuals (the California professor who allegedly made amphetamines in his spare time) or legal drugs diverted by people who sell their prescriptions and so on, but most of what think of when we think of illicit drugs, like pot, coke, smack, and so on, come from organized crime syndicates.

And it's not like the person who buys coke on the street is not aware it's illegal.  Does anyone reasonably think they're obeying the law when they buy drugs?  Is there anyone left on the planet who is unaware of the horrific murders taking place in Mexico and other places, perpetrated by drug cartels protecting their turf, threatening local citizens and police, and so on?  If a person buys cocaine on the street, can they be unaware of the fact that the cocaine is coming from organizations that are committing these acts?  To me, that's a fairly direct and clear line that establishes a moral responsibility.  These drug cartels simply would not exist if people did not buy their products, and therefore the murders would not occur.  This is less abstract than it is a concrete reality.

It has likewise been argued that if the drugs were simply made legal, this would also end the drug cartels and the violence associated with them; this may well be true.  However, it is not the case today, and I am speaking of the people who are buying these drugs today, with the full knowledge of who is supplying them.  One does not avoid moral responsibility by imagining a possible scenario which does not actually exist.

Illicit drug users are part of the chain of violence, and what's more, they're the most important part of that chain, since without buyers, there would be no sellers, no producers, no victims of the crimes of violence.  And they either know that, or they are (in my opinion) carefully avoiding that knowledge so that they can feel better about themselves.

Although all are bad, I think there are moral differences between a person who buys a counterfeit DVD which might be financing Hezbollah, or a person who buys a diamond which might be a 'blood diamond' or a person who pays for a prostitute who might be unwillingly involved in that profession, and a person who buys illicit drugs knowing full well where they come from and what the people selling them are doing.  Unlike DVDs or diamonds or sex, there is a very high probability that a person buying cocaine is buying cocaine that comes directly from the channels where the violence is happening.  And it is that moral responsibility to which I am referring.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2011)

If moral responsibility does follow the spent dollar, what would be the ethical obligation of the individual that finds out that his dollars are being used immorally by the party that he has transacted with?  

Also, the functional belief of our society is that moral responsibility does not follow the spent dollar.  We are responsible for our actions, but not the actions of the people who make new decisions with the money that they made.  Essentially, each dollar is a blank slate and it's up to the person holding it to exercise moral judgment.  

Both of these positions have unpleasant side effects that are worth considering, IMO.  I actually don't know which one I prefer.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 17, 2011)

I learned from a millionaire friend of mine that "money is simply a tool, like any other screwdriver or hammer or even a kitchen device. It's how it's used that determines the value of it, and the person wielding it." From that I learned there are no morals (good or bad) involving money. It's how they spend it that says a lot about the person.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 17, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> If moral responsibility does follow the spent dollar, what would be the ethical obligation of the individual that finds out that his dollars are being used immorally by the party that he has transacted with?



The same as any purchasing decision.  I just found out recently that a company I do business with fired a fellow diabetic for having a 'snack attack' on the job.  I won't do business with that company again, unless they reinstate the person they fired and change their policies.  If I turned a blind eye to it, I'd be essentially endorsing that company's behavior.

However, if a company does something like that and I neither know about it, nor have any reasonable way to know about it, then I can't very well take action on it.  I would not see a person as having a moral responsibility to take action on wrongdoing they do not know about and cannot know about under normal circumstances.



> Also, the functional belief of our society is that moral responsibility does not follow the spent dollar.  We are responsible for our actions, but not the actions of the people who make new decisions with the money that they made.  Essentially, each dollar is a blank slate and it's up to the person holding it to exercise moral judgment.



I disagree; it is common in the USA for outraged individuals to organize boycotts, which sometimes have the intended effect and sometimes do not; but in any case, they're not unusual at all.

I cannot control the actions of a person who ends up with one of my dollars, nor am I responsible for what they might do, but if I know or suspect in advance what they intend to do and I do not want them to do that, then I can refuse to supply them with my dollar.  There are exceptions; I might give a dollar to a homeless person even though I have a reasonable suspicion they are going to buy booze with it; in that case, it seems to me to be the lesser of two evils to show charity.  On the other hand, I won't assist a certain family member of mine with anything whatsoever; I know precisely where her money goes, and I won't be a party to it.



> Both of these positions have unpleasant side effects that are worth considering, IMO.  I actually don't know which one I prefer.



Everyone has to make their own decisions as to how to spend their money and whether or not they care to look deeply into how the money they spend ends up being used.  We literally don't have the time or ability to completely understand how every cent we spend ends up being used by the companies and governments that end up with it.  We have to make our own best judgments and then live with those consequences.

However, in the case of purchasing illicit drugs, there is little difficulty in understanding what is going to happen with the money spent for the drugs.  The fact that the drugs are illegal to begin with makes it somewhat easier to follow.  The fact that the people disemboweling people and hanging them from bridges are drug sellers is pretty clear.  We're not talking about philosophy or vague moral standards here; this is real, it's happening, and if a person is buying illicit drugs, they are paying their money into a channel that funds that violence.  The link is real, evident, clear, easy-to-understand.  I do not grant any leeway to philosophical concepts that would attempt to ameliorate or smudge away the responsibility by comparing this to buying detergent from a company that destroys wetlands or buying diamonds from a jeweler who might or might not have purchased from a chain of distributors which might or might not have obtained them from areas of civil strife, meaning that they might or might not be 'blood diamonds'.  This is much more clear and direct than that.  All attempts to side-step are just that, side-stepping.  If one needs to do that to feel better about contributing directly to the murder and torture of human beings, so be it.  I know what I know; nothing will change my mind about such persons.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2011)

Perhaps the product could be produced by a moral provider and simply disagrees with the arbitrary rules of a society?

Also, consider the obligation incurred from supporting immoral second parties. If one is morally responsible for the actions of another, wouldn't some form of justice be appropriate?

I think we open up a box of unintended consequences by tracking the moral value of the spent dollar. American society would probably fall apart...

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 17, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Perhaps the product could be produced by a moral provider and simply disagrees with the arbitrary rules of a society?
> 
> Also, consider the obligation incurred from supporting immoral second parties. If one is morally responsible for the actions of another, wouldn't some form of justice be appropriate?
> 
> ...



I disagree.  I see that as nothing more than moral relativism, an attempt to deflect and pretend that the horrific deaths experienced by the people hanging from that bridge cannot be tied to the purchase of illegal drugs.  Their deaths can be tied directory to the sales of illicit drugs, and those who buy such drugs bear some responsibility.  Period.  Dance around it all you like with your _'well, then, and if's'_,  it changes nothing.  It's a way for the illegal drug user to pretend that they had nothing to do with the murders.  They do; if they cannot face that, it's their problem, but I will continue to view them as directly responsible, reprehensible, and frankly evil sons-of-b#$* for it.  If they don't like it, too bad.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I disagree.  I see that as nothing more than moral relativism, an attempt to deflect and pretend that the horrific deaths experienced by the people hanging from that bridge cannot be tied to the purchase of illegal drugs.  Their deaths can be tied directory to the sales of illicit drugs, and those who buy such drugs bear some responsibility.  Period.  Dance around it all you like with your _'well, then, and if's'_,  it changes nothing.  It's a way for the illegal drug user to pretend that they had nothing to do with the murders.  They do; if they cannot face that, it's their problem, but I will continue to view them as directly responsible, reprehensible, and frankly evil sons-of-b#$* for it.  If they don't like it, too bad.



Ok, now we are getting down to the brass tacks.  

My grandfather and his father made wine during prohibition.  They sold to neighbors and made a nice profit.  As far as I know, they were a good family engaged in a black market business at that time.  Other then the crime of making booze, they were all good guys.  Other people during prohibition were not so nice.  Al Capone was a notorious gangster.  I'm sure he had plenty of people murdered and it would be hard to make a distinction from what he did from what the other drug cartels do.  Essentially, what you are saying is that Al Capone and my great grandfather were the same.  You are saying that they are collectively responsible for the actions of the industry even though they have very different ways of doing business.  That's like saying the corner mom and pop burger joint is exactly the same as McDonalds.  

Here's where your argument falls apart.  These two individuals are not the same.  My great grandfather's business wasn't connected with Al Capone's business at all.  The only thing they had in common is that they were selling a substance that people wanted.  I think you are wrong when you generalize all drugs and all dealers.  Generalizations are another form of moral relativism, btw.

That said, on a larger level, I tend to agree that people are responsible when they knowingly support immoral business practices by buying certain products.  My issue comes when I try to apply this broadly because our society is so exploitive.  It's very difficult to transact at all for certain items that aren't stained by moral reprehensibility.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 17, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Ok, now we are getting down to the brass tacks.
> 
> My grandfather and his father made wine during prohibition.  They sold to neighbors and made a nice profit.  As far as I know, they were a good family engaged in a black market business at that time.  Other then the crime of making booze, they were all good guys.  Other people during prohibition were not so nice.  Al Capone was a notorious gangster.  I'm sure he had plenty of people murdered and it would be hard to make a distinction from what he did from what the other drug cartels do.  Essentially, what you are saying is that Al Capone and my great grandfather were the same.  You are saying that they are collectively responsible for the actions of the industry even though they have very different ways of doing business.  That's like saying the corner mom and pop burger joint is exactly the same as McDonalds.
> 
> ...



People who bought from your grandfather knew he was not killing people to bring them his illegal product.  If they bought Canadian whiskey, on the other hand, they knew it was coming from Canada; and apart from some friend of theirs driving it across the bridge during a visit, it came through some gang like the Purple Gang in Detroit or Al Capone, etc, etc.  Those people *knew* they were getting their Canadian whiskey from the people who dealt in death to bring it to them.

By the same token, if a person grows their own pot under the various 'medical marijuana' laws, they know they're not importing it via the people who are disemboweling others and hanging them from bridges.  If they're buying cocaine, they have a very good reason to believe that those people are exactly where their drugs are coming from.

This is not rocket science, and attempts to deflect and make excuses do not impress me.  If you buy smack, you know where it's coming from, and if you buy cocaine, you know where it's coming from, and if you buy pot you have a very good idea where it's coming from.  Pretending that you don't know is not an excuse.

What you appear to be saying is that if people who bought wine from your grandfather had no moral responsibility for the crimes of Al Capone, then neither did the people who bought from Al Capone.  I say that if they bought from Al Capone, you bet your *** they had moral responsibility.  This twisting and shifting around to deny responsibility is fine if that's what gets you through the night.  It doesn't fool me nor does it change my opinion of drug users.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What you appear to be saying is that if people who bought wine from your grandfather had no moral responsibility for the crimes of Al Capone, then neither did the people who bought from Al Capone.  I say that if they bought from Al Capone, you bet your *** they had moral responsibility.  This twisting and shifting around to deny responsibility is fine if that's what gets you through the night. * It doesn't fool me nor does it change my opinion of drug users.*



Please allow me to clarify.  I am saying that people who bought wine from my grandfather ARE different then those who bought booze from the associates of Al Capone.  Therefore, the users of the illegal substance, the people who buy from the businesses in question, are also very different.   I am under the impression that you feel like these two groups have the same moral culpability because they are engaged in a black market business.  Please note the *boldfaced *section and clarify.




Bill Mattocks said:


> If you buy smack, you know where it's coming from...



View attachment $050608_opium_marines_800.JPG

If many Americans knew where the smack was coming from, they would be quite shocked.  Who are the good guys in this picture?  The answer is morally relativistic.  Our society begins to fray at the seams when real values are applied to it.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 17, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> People who bought from your grandfather knew he was not killing people to bring them his illegal product. If they bought Canadian whiskey, on the other hand, they knew it was coming from Canada; and apart from some friend of theirs driving it across the bridge during a visit, it came through some gang like the Purple Gang in Detroit or Al Capone, etc, etc. Those people *knew* they were getting their Canadian whiskey from the people who dealt in death to bring it to them.



Pretty sure my grandfather and his uncle sailed down from Canada during Prohibition without killing anyone-made it look like they were fishermen. My great-grandfather would have, but he was blind by then.

Just a little addition to the relevant history-people like Joe Kennedy didn't kill anyone either, though he supplied people that did, no doubt. (Though, to be fair, there is more than a little doubt about Joe actually being involved in _illegal_ liquor trade during Prohibition.)



Bill Mattocks said:


> What you appear to be saying is that if people who bought wine from your grandfather had no moral responsibility for the crimes of Al Capone, then neither did the people who bought from Al Capone. I say that if they bought from Al Capone, you bet your *** they had moral responsibility. This twisting and shifting around to deny responsibility is fine if that's what gets you through the night.



And on that we're in agreement, but....



Bill Mattocks said:


> It doesn't fool me nor does it change my opinion of drug users.



You've also made it clear in the past that legalization of drugs and relieving those users of responsiblity for the violence associated with their illicit nature wouldn't change your opinion of them either.


----------



## frank raud (Sep 17, 2011)

Bill, I believe I am seeing a great opportunity here for free-trade drugs.  drugs manufactured or grown to a strict code of non-violence. "Altered conciousness with a social concious." That way the only people who should be dying from the use of drugs would be the users themselves. You could charge a premium to those addicts with a similar moral code to yours. If legalizing is a sidestep, then perhaps the option of fair trade would appeal to you?


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 19, 2011)

how about this

drugs are ****, everyone knows it, if you are dumb enough to get started using when you KNOW what it leads to, I have no sympathy for your dumb ***. AND i come from a family where addiction is the norm.

I hate drugs, and i have no pity for the people STUPID enough to get hooked. Know why I feel sorry for ? the babies born addicted cuz the crack head mommy doesnt stop using.

i am all for the legalizing of pot. but anything else? i cant see how anyone would be for legalized coke or speed......thats too stupid for words


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 19, 2011)

All I see here is a bunch of parsing words to make it OK for illicit drug users to keep using their illicit drugs, and to make the demand side not the reason for the supply side, and the violence that comes with it.  I think it's a sad indictment of our 'victim' philosophy in which no one is responsible for their own actions.  I can't see how anything I would say would make it more clear; if a person cannot see their own culpability, I can't force them to.  But I see it, and I'll continue to see it.  Illicit drug users are not victims, and they are morally responsible for the violence committed by those who bring them their illegal drugs.  I'm done.


----------



## Steve (Sep 19, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All I see here is a bunch of parsing words to make it OK for illicit drug users to keep using their illicit drugs, and to make the demand side not the reason for the supply side, and the violence that comes with it.  I think it's a sad indictment of our 'victim' philosophy in which no one is responsible for their own actions.  I can't see how anything I would say would make it more clear; if a person cannot see their own culpability, I can't force them to.  But I see it, and I'll continue to see it.  Illicit drug users are not victims, and they are morally responsible for the violence committed by those who bring them their illegal drugs.  I'm done.


Do you feel the same way about oil?


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 19, 2011)

Seems that Iran has no problem figuring out what to do with the drug traffickers in their country. 


> http://news.yahoo.com/iran-hangs-co...BzdGNhdAN1cwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2UEdGVzdAM-;_ylv=3
> Iran on Sunday hanged a convicted drug trafficker at a prison in the northwestern city of Qazvin, the Mehr news agency reported.
> It identified the convicted trafficker as 39-year-old Elias Babai Chegini.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 19, 2011)

Even oppressive theocracies can get some things right it seems.  I wont go into the whole background again as to why I think so but I'm with BillM when it comes to dealing with those most directly responsible for the problem of illegal drugs trafficing (not counting government apathy in this case).


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 19, 2011)

Well, I'm going to put another slant on this.  Teach better morals to all our people, especially our kids.  I am a Christian.  You don't have to be a Christian, or even religious, to understand certain morals are worth upholding.  Deciding that nobody can do any wrong is wrong itself.  There have to be rules, and of course, there have to be sanctions.  That is the problem in the USA.  There are still lots of rules, but few sanctions that mean anything.  

Possession of illegal drugs will often mean no more than a slap on the wrists.  Even possession with intent to sell can be bargained down.  If there aren't meaningful sanctions against drugs, there in effect, are no laws either.

As to legalizing drug use; who takes care of the users?  I know on the one hand, it seems like a quick fix.  However, as addicts spiral downwards, they need more and more drugs, and more and more medical attention.  And it will be free to them, but not us people who work and pay taxes.  I'm not sure I want to go there either.

War on Mexico might be one solution.  But at what cost?  All Latin America, as well as 2/3 of the rest of the world, would rail against us.  The big bad USA imperialists at it again!  And where do we stop?  Do we go all the way down to the rest of Central America, then into South America?  

What do we do after we conquer those countries?  (anybody remember The Mouse That Roared?) We need a solution, I'm just not sure that legalizing drugs or attacking Mexico are viable solutions.

Let's go back to teaching and enforcing morals in our country and see if that works.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 19, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I'm going to put another slant on this. Teach better morals to all our people, especially our kids. I am a Christian. You don't have to be a Christian, or even religious, to understand certain morals are worth upholding. Deciding that nobody can do any wrong is wrong itself. There have to be rules, and of course, there have to be sanctions. That is the problem in the USA. There are still lots of rules, but few sanctions that mean anything. .



Are you speaking of the morality (or lack thereof) of obeying the law, or the morality (or lack thereof) of "using drugs?"


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 19, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Are you speaking of the morality (or lack thereof) of obeying the law, or the morality (or lack thereof) of "using drugs?"


 Better question... WHOSE morals are we supposed to be teaching? God's? Allah? Buddah? Shiva? Atheists (yes I acknowledge that they have morals too :uhyeah: )? 
What's moral to me might be immoral to you and vice-versa. 
Take a moment think that one over.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 20, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Are you speaking of the morality (or lack thereof) of obeying the law, or the morality (or lack thereof) of "using drugs?"



Well, since banned drug use is illegal, I guess I can easily say both.  And for the same reason, I am not sure what your question is.  If you are aksing about all law, or just those pertaining to using certain drugs, to me there is still no problem.  It is moral to obey the law, including those laws against illegal drug use.  It is also moral to obey the law against murder, theft, forgery, purjury, etc.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 20, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> Better question... WHOSE morals are we supposed to be teaching? God's? Allah? Buddah? Shiva? Atheists (yes I acknowledge that they have morals too :uhyeah: )?
> What's moral to me might be immoral to you and vice-versa.
> Take a moment think that one over.



I don't know if it is a better question.  It is easily answered.

I live in the USA.  I consider it moral to obey the laws of the nation, as well as those of my state.  I am also a Christian as I mentioned, so I consider it moral to obey the laws of God.

Since in the USA we have a fair amount of religious freedom, those of other religions are free to disagree with the morals of my religion.  But in this country we all are required to obey the civil law.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 20, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, since banned drug use is illegal, I guess I can easily say both. And for the same reason, I am not sure what your question is. If you are aksing about all law, or just those pertaining to using certain drugs, to me there is still no problem. It is moral to obey the law, including those laws against illegal drug use. It is also moral to obey the law against murder, theft, forgery, purjury, etc.



There's a difference between moral and legal. It was moral for many to aid slaves from escaping the South prior to and during the Civil War, but it was also mostly illegal, and was thought by some to be immoral. Morality is a construct, and relative. Laws are generally more concrete, absolute, and have no regard for "morality" one way or the other. It is legal to abort a human fetus, though many would argue that it's immoral. It might be legal and moral for some to give truthful testimony in court that sends a friend or close relative to jail on a minor offense, but immoral to many others who believe that you shouldn't rat out your friends. It would be immoral to allow your children to starve to death, but illegal to steal food to feed them. 

I'd posit that it is clearly not always moral for everyone to obey the law-that, in fact, obeying some laws under certain circumstances might pretty clearly be immoral. 

I'd also have to question which morals we're supposed to be teaching our children, and to what end? And I have to point out that the teaching of morals doesn't necessarily ingrain them, or keep those within whom they might otherwise be ingrained from violating them.I certainly don't think that there are many 9 year olds looking forward to the day when they can immorally violate the drug laws and become hopeless junkies, in spite of whatever morality they have been taught....:lfao:


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 21, 2011)

elder999 said:


> There's a difference between moral and legal. It was moral for many to aid slaves from escaping the South prior to and during the Civil War, but it was also mostly illegal, and was thought by some to be immoral. Morality is a construct, and relative. Laws are generally more concrete, absolute, and have no regard for "morality" one way or the other. It is legal to abort a human fetus, though many would argue that it's immoral. It might be legal and moral for some to give truthful testimony in court that sends a friend or close relative to jail on a minor offense, but immoral to many others who believe that you shouldn't rat out your friends. It would be immoral to allow your children to starve to death, but illegal to steal food to feed them.
> 
> I'd posit that it is clearly not always moral for everyone to obey the law-that, in fact, obeying some laws under certain circumstances might pretty clearly be immoral.
> 
> I'd also have to question which morals we're supposed to be teaching our children, and to what end? And I have to point out that the teaching of morals doesn't necessarily ingrain them, or keep those within whom they might otherwise be ingrained from violating them.I certainly don't think that there are many 9 year olds looking forward to the day when they can immorally violate the drug laws and become hopeless junkies, in spite of whatever morality they have been taught....:lfao:



Well sir, that's a lot of points you are commenting on.  I would like to answer them since you have asked.  But first I think I need to know your definition of legal, and your definition of moral.  You assert points that may be confusing.  Especially where morals and law may appear not agree, yet state that 9 year olds might immorally violate drug laws.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Sep 21, 2011)

OK. Drug users have bad morals and are acting as accomplices in Mexico's drug war. Now what can you do about it? That is, other than jumping up and down and pointing fingers at drug users?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 21, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Especially where morals and law may appear not agree, yet state that 9 year olds might immorally violate drug laws.



No confusion, other than _*that's not what I said.*_

What I said, basically, is that no 9 year old aspires to become a junkie when they get older. 9 being about the age when, for better or worse, most of our moral compasses are developed-though perhaps not fully developed, it's when most of us clearly have been programmed to know "right" from "wrong."


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 22, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No confusion, other than _*that's not what I said.*_
> 
> What I said, basically, is that no 9 year old aspires to become a junkie when they get older. 9 being about the age when, for better or worse, most of our moral compasses are developed-though perhaps not fully developed, it's when most of us clearly have been programmed to know "right" from "wrong."



Ah, well there is then some misunderstanding on my part.  But the examples you gave indicate your belief that laws and morals can contradict each other, and they cannot both be reconciled.  As to 9 year olds, it was your choice of words, immorally violate law, that got me to thinking you were trying to say something else.  So, for any misunderstanding I had, I am sorry.  Do you then think that morals and laws that seem to, or actually do contradict each other, can in fact be reconciled?


----------



## Steve (Sep 22, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Ah, well there is then some misunderstanding on my part.  But the examples you gave indicate your belief that laws and morals can contradict each other, and they cannot both be reconciled.  As to 9 year olds, it was your choice of words, immorally violate law, that got me to thinking you were trying to say something else.  So, for any misunderstanding I had, I am sorry.  Do you then think that morals and laws that seem to, or actually do contradict each other, can in fact be reconciled?


Only by amending or repealing the law.  Civil disobedience, by Thoreau, is all about this very subject.  If you haven't read it, you might really enjoy it.  Very, very interesting and thought provoking read on the subject of what can (or in the author's opinion, MUST) be done when there is a disconnect between what we believe to be Just or Right and what is Lawful.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Only by amending or repealing the law. Civil disobedience, by Thoreau, is all about this very subject. If you haven't read it, you might really enjoy it. Very, very interesting and thought provoking read on the subject of what can (or in the author's opinion, MUST) be done when there is a disconnect between what we believe to be Just or Right and what is Lawful.



My understanding from a quick google search, is that Thoreau advocated disobeying any unjust law.  Also, that a man must expect to go to jail, in fact desire to go to jail.  That may be an over simplificaion.

There are a couple of problems I see.  First, who gets to determine what basis on which to determine if a law is unjust?  Sounds like something leading to anarchy.  Part of a democracy is that the majority rules.  There will be majorities on a large variety of subjects, so very likely, a person who is not part of the majority on one issue, may well be on others.  If there is not to be anarchy, there must be submission to the majorities rule until a convincing arguement can be made against a law, that a sufficient number of citizens will form a new majority against that law.

Second, how many times did Thoreau go to jail for his beliefs?  Depending on the law, how long will a person be in jail?  While in jail, how does a person protest and attempt to form new majorities?  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, was willing to go to jail, but his crimes didn't usually require long sentances, and anyway, he usually got out on bail pretty quickly.  He also had the advantage by that time of the sympathy of a large portion of the population, as well as a large 'machine' to keep his plight in front of sympathetic and unsympathetic parts of the populace.

But I would still be curious how Elder999 defines moral and law, and if he does or does not believe they can be reconciled.  Apparently you do not believe they can ever co-exist.  Is that correct?


----------



## Steve (Sep 22, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> My understanding from a quick google search, is that Thoreau advocated disobeying any unjust law.  Also, that a man must expect to go to jail, in fact desire to go to jail.  That may be an over simplificaion.
> 
> There are a couple of problems I see.  First, who gets to determine what basis on which to determine if a law is unjust?  Sounds like something leading to anarchy.  Part of a democracy is that the majority rules.  There will be majorities on a large variety of subjects, so very likely, a person who is not part of the majority on one issue, may well be on others.  If there is not to be anarchy, there must be submission to the majorities rule until a convincing arguement can be made against a law, that a sufficient number of citizens will form a new majority against that law.
> 
> ...


It doesn't sound like you've read the book.  Civil Disobience is a writing that has profoundly influenced some of the most effective revolutionaries in our modern history.  Ghandi was influenced by this writing, and MLK Jr. was influenced by them both (Ghandi and Thoreau).    

Honestly, it sounds like you're dismissing what I believe is an integral part of the discussion.  A google search doesn't cut it.  The piece is short and it's entirely available online.  Check it out.  Also, check out how it has influenced people like Ghandi, MLK Jr.

What I believe is that there is a difference between something being "lawful" and something being "ethical."  One is political.  The other is not.  Can they co-exist?  Of course.  But, when Hitler decided that it was lawful to imprison jews, gypsies and homosexuals (among others) in camps and kill them, it was then and remains now very, very immoral.  By anyone's standard.  

Thoreau would argue that, knowing fundamentally that this was immoral, it was the obligation of the citizen to refuse to comply with the laws requiring the internment and subsequent execution of these innocents.  And that they should expect to be held accountable for their actions.

Have you ever heard of the My Lai Massacre that occurred in Vietnam?  It was a dark day for our military.  When asked, many soldiers claimed they were "just following orders."  It's remains a lesson in the difference between lawful and moral.  And it's the actions of Hugh Thompson Jr that stand out, because he was willing to defy direct orders and do what he believed was both unlawful, but just and moral.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 22, 2011)

[yt]hkFa2lSNAGc[/yt]

If you can watch this interview and not feel this mans obvious pain, even so many years on from that dreadful day, you are not a man/woman I want to know.  Seeing such a brave man working so hard to hold back the tears as the memories were brought back to him brought tears of my own for his sake.

EDIT: I realise this is not utterly on-topic but I was strongly moved on finding this, after a search prompted by Steve's words above, and thought it would do no harm to share.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 22, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> But I would still be curious how Elder999 defines moral and law, and if he does or does not believe they can be reconciled. Apparently you do not believe they can ever co-exist. Is that correct?



They can sometimes be reconciled, and often one is based on the other, but they are two completely independent things.


----------



## Buka (Sep 22, 2011)

Best thread to stay out of I've yet seen.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 23, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> [yt]hkFa2lSNAGc[/yt]
> 
> If you can watch this interview and not feel this mans obvious pain, even so many years on from that dreadful day, you are not a man/woman I want to know.  Seeing such a brave man working so hard to hold back the tears as the memories were brought back to him brought tears of my own for his sake.
> 
> EDIT: I realise this is not utterly on-topic but I was strongly moved on finding this, after a search prompted by Steve's words above, and thought it would do no harm to share.



I had not seen this before.  Very poignant.  Thanks for posting that.


----------



## frank raud (Sep 23, 2011)

hongkongfooey said:


> OK. Drug users have bad morals and are acting as accomplices in Mexico's drug war. Now what can you do about it? That is, other than jumping up and down and pointing fingers at drug users?



Insist that they support local American producers of illegal chemicals and buy hydroponically grown marijuana to reduce the levels of violence associated with drug trafficking? Or does the violence inflicted by American based drug dealers not qualify as terrorism?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 23, 2011)

Buy American! Lol!

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## oftheherd1 (Sep 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> It doesn't sound like you've read the book.  Civil Disobience is a writing that has profoundly influenced some of the most effective revolutionaries in our modern history.  Ghandi was influenced by this writing, and MLK Jr. was influenced by them both (Ghandi and Thoreau).
> 
> *No sir, I have not.  I said that in my answer.*
> 
> ...



I thought I had posted something like the above before, but I must have inadvertently backed out of the thread before posting when I had to leave the house quickly.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Sep 23, 2011)

frank raud said:


> Insist that they support local American producers of illegal chemicals and buy hydroponically grown marijuana to reduce the levels of violence associated with drug trafficking? Or does the violence inflicted by American based drug dealers not qualify as terrorism?




Look for the union label.


----------



## Master Dan (Sep 23, 2011)

Drug enforcement law enforcement is a for profit business and it needs to stop legalize all drugs and no more drug cartells tax it spend on treatment but for the poor guy in mexico crying about his family and dojang get the hell out you cannot protect your famiily as long as we supply billions in revenue plus the weopons and coruption on both sides nothing will stop. I know Columbia seems to have transended to much more positive things but with the global economic issues money always wins and poor people loose relocate you cannot justify any possesions or income if you loose family members including yourself who must raise your family


----------



## Steve (Sep 27, 2011)

Also related to other threads, a local talk show discussed the mexican cartels and America's culpability as a result of the prohibition on drugs.  I have to say, I agree with everything they said.  I think they read my posts on this thread as prep for this segment. 
http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=33977&p=&n=



> [h=3]'The News As We See It' - Ron & Don are disappointed with Seahawks and say the game isn't entertaining and really not much fun to watch. By the way, Pete Carroll we were booing you. Ron updates us on the Brain Cancer Walk, there were over 2,000 people at the walk with special shirts for those who have brain cancer. Drug cartels are contacting school districts and asking for teachers to fork over half of what they make each week or else... Is the US not culpable in some way? Mexican gangs are far worse in the US than we imagined. At the Berkley College Republicans' bake sale you pay a different price depending on your gender and race to make a correlation with affirmative action.


[/h]
Relevant part starts at 20 minutes in.


----------

