Latin America changing strategies on war on drugs

[Dirk]

And the reaction after.

Well, there are some differences, yes. Alcohol depresses, impedes communication, slurs judgement, temporarily challenges mobility, causes nausea and so on. Marijuana relaxes, impedes communication and brings an emotional "high", which involves apparent detachment from the senses, etc. This happens bit by bit.

No.

So this isn't applicable to you, then?

The police should be popping up anywhere and everywhere, so people don't use the drug.

Probably has a limited effect. But remember, a lot of people do it because it's "rebellious" - if it isn't so, there's no point in doing it.

Cold. Simply cold and selfish, that is what I get out of it this. Do you believe it's right to let people choose overdose and drug addiction and when they're in a the predicament they're only going to be told it was an individual choice? Horrible!

Could i say the same of your support of tobacco and alcohol being legal?

I do care. A lot. But if people decide to harm their own bodies, i won't stop them. Not stopping them doesn't mean not helping them. I'm a big fan of drug rehabilitation.

Some crave order, and some love chaos. That mixture would in a lawless country, would be poison.

Nobody loves chaos, not even me. People organise. Fact of life.

(i have to say, that smiley emoticon looks like he's taken crack :giggle

 

[GOP]

Well, there are some differences, yes. Alcohol depresses, impedes communication, slurs judgement, temporarily challenges mobility, causes nausea and so on. Marijuana relaxes, impedes communication and brings an emotional "high", which involves apparent detachment from the senses, etc. This happens bit by bit.

Marijuana can also make you very sleepy.

So this isn't applicable to you, then?

Of course not.

Probably has a limited effect. But remember, a lot of people do it because it's "rebellious" - if it isn't so, there's no point in doing it.

So you think that's why we should legalize it? Because irresponsible rebellious people tend to use the drug?

Could i say the same of your support of tobacco and alcohol being legal?

Of course it would be the same thing. But who takes an overdose more frequently, someone using drugs or drinking alcohol, and who has the highest chance of survival? Same with cigarettes, you hardly die from smoking a cigarette when you're an adult.

I do care. A lot. But if people decide to harm their own bodies, i won't stop them. Not stopping them doesn't mean not helping them. I'm a big fan of drug rehabilitation.

Agreed.

Nobody loves chaos, not even me. People organise. Fact of life.

So if people started shooting each other in your society view, that would be okay because there are no laws against it?

(i have to say, that smiley emoticon looks like he's taken crack :giggle

I'm sure it just looks like it since we're speaking about it. No, but I can see what you mean.

 

[Dirk]

Marijuana can also make you very sleepy.

Yes.

Of course not.

Me neither. I don't smoke any more.

So you think that's why we should legalize it? Because irresponsible rebellious people tend to use the drug?

No, i've stated why i support it. I'm suggesting that since it's not rebellious to do a certain drug, and it's very harmful, there's less motivation to do it.

Of course it would be the same thing. But who takes an overdose more frequently, someone using drugs or drinking alcohol,

I've no idea.

and who has the highest chance of survival?

Depends what drug we're talking about, really. Cannabis is less dangerous and addictive than MDMA and MDMA is less addictive and less dangerous than tobacco and tobacco is less dangerous and addictive than cocaine and cocaine is less addictive and less dangerous than heroin.

Same with cigarettes, you hardly die from smoking a cigarette when you're an adult.

There are, however, long-term health hazards. Lung cancer, bronchitis and such respiratory diseases can occur, as well as less immunity to viruses.

So if people started shooting each other in your society view, that would be okay because there are no laws against it?

Firstly, people shoot each other in reality, as well. I am not a utopian. I can't wave a magic wand and say, now the state's gone, everything's okay. Of course i wouldn't think it's okay. Just as i don't think taking heroin is okay or cocaine. You find the cause and you neutralise it. Doctor analogy, right?

 

[GOP]

No, i've stated why i support it. I'm suggesting that since it's not rebellious to do a certain drug, and it's very harmful, there's less motivation to do it.

So you think drug addicts keep using their drug because they're addicted? I'd rather prefer to say they're victims, and they don't care much about what the state does with them anymore.

Depends what drug we're talking about, really. Cannabis is less dangerous and addictive than MDMA and MDMA is less addictive and less dangerous than tobacco and tobacco is less dangerous and addictive than cocaine and cocaine is less addictive and less dangerous than heroin.

And what are the two you wounded up with last? Cocaine and heroine. A branch that is vastly different and very dangerous. This what you want to legalize?

There are, however, long-term health hazards. Lung cancer, bronchitis and such respiratory diseases can occur, as well as less immunity to viruses.

Of course there are, but at least people addicted to this has a higher chance of stopping before it's too late compared to stronger drugs as earlier mentioned.

Firstly, people shoot each other in reality, as well. I am not a utopian. I can't wave a magic wand and say, now the state's gone, everything's okay. Of course i wouldn't think it's okay. Just as i don't think taking heroin is okay or cocaine. You find the cause and you neutralise it. Doctor analogy, right?

True, but still this is not what you've earlier stated that you support. You're a self-declared anarchist, and anarchism is the exact opposite of what you just described. It is utopia.

 

[Dirk]

So you think drug addicts keep using their drug because they're addicted? I'd rather prefer to say they're victims, and they don't care much about what the state does with them anymore.

I agree?

And what are the two you wounded up with last? Cocaine and heroine. A branch that is vastly different and very dangerous. This what you want to legalize?

Just like i'd allow such dangerous implements as hunting knives or guns.

Of course there are, but at least people addicted to this has a higher chance of stopping before it's too late compared to stronger drugs as earlier mentioned.

Yes, i agree. It's important to educate people on the dangers of taking different drugs. But i wouldn't suggest pretending alcohol and tobacco are a "special case" and i wouldn't make up things about softer drugs to discourage their usage - the New Labour Government in Britain has been doing this. Whenever experts go "logically speaking, it should be another way", they tell them to shut up.

True, but still this is not what you've earlier stated that you support. You're a self-declared anarchist, and anarchism is the exact opposite of what you just described. It is utopia.

On the contrary, i am of the view of Rudolf Rocker on that matter. I am an anarchist because i'm not a utopian.

 

[GOP]

Just like i'd allow such dangerous implements as hunting knives or guns.

Just as dangerous as heroine and cocaine?

Yes, i agree. It's important to educate people on the dangers of taking different drugs.

Absolutely!

But i wouldn't suggest pretending alcohol and tobacco are a "special case"

Compared to heroine and cocaine, it's a different, but not a special case.

and i wouldn't make up things about softer drugs to discourage their usage - the New Labour Government in Britain has been doing this. Whenever experts go "logically speaking, it should be another way", they tell them to shut up.

And here I agree. The people should be let to themselves to decide, but there comes to a limit. I disagree with the current government, because they're controlling people's every move. But I draw the line when we start legalizing real drugs. There should always be an outer line that we all should follow.

On the contrary, i am of the view of Rudolf Rocker on that matter. I am an anarchist because i'm not a utopian.

Could you elaborate? I'm just curious, how exactly do you view anarchism as something that's not a utopic view?

 

[Dirk]

Um, by the way, it's Dirk, not Seer Travis Truman.

Just as dangerous as heroine and cocaine?

More so. Guns are designed to kill or maim, with heroine and, to quite a lesser extent, cocaine, it's a side effect. On the other hand, guns serve the purpose of defending yourself. Chucking cocaine into someone's face isn't as effective!

Compared to heroine and cocaine, it's a different, but not a special case.

Yah. I'm just concerned that exactly how dangerous they can be compared to some of the softer drugs is being avoided.

I disagree with the current government, because they're controlling people's every move. But I draw the line when we start legalizing real drugs. There should always be an outer line that we all should follow.

I live in the UK at the moment. I'm glad they stopped that ID card scheme. It's ridiculous that we've become the "most surveilled society in the world". Most of that is from the state. Plus, they're incompetent at keeping private information secure. I'm annoyed at how the Glasgow city council are closing all those primary schools. I dislike their banning of distasteful groups - like Islam4UK (horrendous idea, sharia law in Britain, but still, banning them?). I hate how they keep ignoring the unions. I'm worried that they'll reduce welfare too much. I'm concerned about cuts in universities, i think education is very important. I've had enough of them, to be honest.

Could you elaborate? I'm just curious, how exactly do you view anarchism as something that's not a utopic view?

Well, anarchism basically means removing the state and capitalism. Doing that isn't going to fix society's problems magically, it's just removing two obstacles to freedom and (in my opinion) to a better life. I don't think the current system is acceptable and is rather restrictive and coercive. The state isn't the cause of all problems, abolishing it, just gives us a better chance at making something better, i think.

 

[GOP]

Um, by the way, it's Dirk, not Seer Travis Truman.

So sorry, no sleep makes a lot of mess!

More so. Guns are designed to kill or maim, with heroine and, to quite a lesser extent, cocaine, it's a side effect. On the other hand, guns serve the purpose of defending yourself. Chucking cocaine into someone's face isn't as effective!

The criminal aspects of heroine and cocaine are far greater than guns. And even though I'd like to liberate gun laws all over Europe, I see the drawbacks, but I most definitely see this as safer than liberating drugs. Liberating drug laws will just continue the suffering of the already addicts and give larger opportunities of criminals to earn money off of their suffering.

I live in the UK at the moment. I'm glad they stopped that ID card scheme. It's ridiculous that we've become the "most surveilled society in the world". Most of that is from the state. Plus, they're incompetent at keeping private information secure. I'm annoyed at how the Glasgow city council are closing all those primary schools. I dislike their banning of distasteful groups - like Islam4UK (horrendous idea, sharia law in Britain, but still, banning them?). I hate how they keep ignoring the unions. I'm worried that they'll reduce welfare too much. I'm concerned about cuts in universities, i think education is very important. I've had enough of them, to be honest.

And all this under a social democratic Labour government? I agree with a lot of your points, the Tories are definitely better at keeping private individuals really private. That's why I am going for Cameron in May. Banning extremist groups on the other hand is a necessity in keeping them away from recruiting even more manipulated members, so there's a point I can see we disagree on.

Well, anarchism basically means removing the state and capitalism.

Reducing the state would be good, but removing capitalism? Now how would that work?

Doing that isn't going to fix society's problems magically, it's just removing two obstacles to freedom and (in my opinion) to a better life.

So being able to create your own wealth and compete with others on the market leads to a worse life?

I don't think the current system is acceptable and is rather restrictive and coercive. The state isn't the cause of all problems, abolishing it, just gives us a better chance at making something better, i think.

Reducing it, and enhancing the power of the individual person is the most important step. Although we seem to agree on almost 50% of the points, there's just something about this "let-loose" policy of yours that I need to get the hang of.

 

[Dirk]

The criminal aspects of heroine and cocaine are far greater than guns. And even though I'd like to liberate gun laws all over Europe, I see the drawbacks, but I most definitely see this as safer than liberating drugs. Liberating drug laws will just continue the suffering of the already addicts and give larger opportunities of criminals to earn money off of their suffering.

While i don't like hard drugs, i just think we should be dealing with these things on a different plane than state repression. Saying "it's wrong" and slammng them in prison would be overly statist and harsh, in my opinion. They are, as you say, victims. We should be thinking about rehabilitation and education (not misinformation) on how drugs can be dangerous to the health etc.

And all this under a social democratic Labour government? I agree with a lot of your points, the Tories are definitely better at keeping private individuals really private. That's why I am going for Cameron in May. Banning extremist groups on the other hand is a necessity in keeping them away from recruiting even more manipulated members, so there's a point I can see we agree.

Well, supposedly social democratic. Though in my experience social democrat means they like to pretend they're saviours of humanity. And New labour love that image.

As for extremist groups, i don't like most of them. Islam4UK, as i've said, has quite an abhorrent idea. EDL are terrible people, as well. I won't join some of those on the left who're going "good, now why not ban EDL?". I don't agree with what they say, i often hate it, but i will defend to the death their right to say it. While also doing everything i can the other way. I agree with freedom of expression.

I won't vote, even though i can. Last time i voted was in 1997, and look what i wrought! Ultimately, to use the popular slogan, my dreams are too big for their ballot boxes. I'm also not about to support politicians, i dislike them. They are lying, cheating bastards. Also, as a supporter of democracy, i will not be happy until we have it. I will not give up my individual sovereignty to some stuffy upper or middle class bureaucratic ponce. I refuse to give the system legitimancy.

Reducing the state would be good, but removing capitalism? Now how would that work?

Well, you know, remove state coercion, remove coercion in the workplace. Consistency, innit.

So being able to create your own wealth and compete with others on the market leads to a worse life?

Not necessarily. I don't exactly know entirely, we should test out what really needs to be done, than put our faith in a certain doctrine.

As for creating your own wealth, socialism achieves that far better than the current arrangement. The workers are the producers, so they should decide what happens to the profits. I'm a proponent of industrial democracy. In fact, i've quite a love affair with democracy as a whole.

By the way, capitalism and socialism aren't mutually exclusive.

Reducing it, and enhancing the power of the individual person is the most important step. Although we seem to agree on almost 50% of the points, there's just something about this "let-loose" policy of yours that I need to get the hang of.

This "let-loose" policy of mine is merely suggesting bettering society through different means than the state. The power of the individual, and freedom are some of the most important political attributes, i agree.

 

[GOP]

While i don't like hard drugs, i just think we should be dealing with these things on a different plane than state repression. Saying "it's wrong" and slammng them in prison would be overly statist and harsh, in my opinion. They are, as you say, victims. We should be thinking about rehabilitation and education (not misinformation) on how drugs can be dangerous to the health etc.

Here I partially agree with you. The treatment the drug addicts today receive is too bad and too hard. We also have to think economy here, and putting all of them in jail would obviously cost too much. And so would rehab. So trying to prevent it from the start, by law, is the best.

Well, supposedly social democratic. Though in my experience social democrat means they like to pretend they're saviours of humanity. And New labour love that image.

Agree.

As for extremist groups, i don't like most of them. Islam4UK, as i've said, has quite an abhorrent idea. EDL are terrible people, as well. I won't join some of those on the left who're going "good, now why not ban EDL?". I don't agree with what they say, i often hate it, but i will defend to the death their right to say it. While also doing everything i can the other way. I agree with freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression is always right, but to protect the right cause, sometimes we need protection by the higher power. And when we're at the risk of radicalization among the Muslim youth in Britain, it's important that the government are taking steps towards that not happening.

I won't vote, even though i can. Last time i voted was in 1997, and look what i wrought! Ultimately, to use the popular slogan, my dreams are too big for their ballot boxes. I'm also not about to support politicians, i dislike them. They are lying, cheating bastards. Also, as a supporter of democracy, i will not be happy until we have it. I will not give up my individual sovereignty to some stuffy upper or middle class bureaucratic ponce. I refuse to give the system legitimancy.

I can of course understand that if you voted in 1997, you'd hardly want to vote again! Although I respect Blair's foreign policies. But you should vote, it is important that whatever you vote for that your voice is heard.

As for creating your own wealth, socialism achieves that far better than the current arrangement. The workers are the producers, so they should decide what happens to the profits. I'm a proponent of industrial democracy. In fact, i've quite a love affair with democracy as a whole.

But then is it really called socialism?

This "let-loose" policy of mine is merely suggesting bettering society through different means than the state. The power of the individual, and freedom are some of the most important political attributes, i agree.

And here we seem to have an agreement, although I do believe the state should still exist to create laws etc.

 

[Dirk]

Freedom of expression is always right, but to protect the right cause, sometimes we need protection by the higher power. And when we're at the risk of radicalization among the Muslim youth in Britain, it's important that the government are taking steps towards that not happening.

I think it's always sad when people join these groups. A lot of them don't have ideologies or views i agree with at all. I'm just concerned, if we give the state the power to vanquish groups it finds distasteful, where it will end up. There are groups with very noble causes, for example. Like Greenpeace, or some such environmentalist group. My union does a lot of campaigning - sometimes for controversial things - i would hate to see them banned, because they are an iconvenience to some haughty politician.

But then is it really called socialism?

It's the traditional definition, and the one i still use. That's why anarchists are socialists, and we can look down on the statists.

And here we seem to have an agreement, although I do believe the state should still exist to create laws etc.

I don't believe a state is necessary, and i'm also concerned laws aren't flexible enough. If it really was necessary, then i'd accept it, but only on libertarian socialist terms.

 

[GOP]

I think it's always sad when people join these groups. A lot of them don't have ideologies or views i agree with at all. I'm just concerned, if we give the state the power to vanquish groups it finds distasteful, where it will end up.

I definitely see your point.

There are groups with very noble causes, for example. Like Greenpeace, or some such environmentalist group. My union does a lot of campaigning - sometimes for controversial things - i would hate to see them banned, because they are an iconvenience to some haughty politician.

Totally agreed. But where we should all draw the line is where groups are challenging our peace and our values. Like Ayaan Hirsi Ali once said: "tolerance of intolerance is cowardice". One of my favourite quotes.

I don't believe a state is necessary, and i'm also concerned laws aren't flexible enough. If it really was necessary, then i'd accept it, but only on libertarian socialist terms.

How will society work properly if we don't have anyone to protect the innocent civilians?

 

[Dirk]

Totally agreed. But where we should all draw the line is where groups are challenging our peace and our values. Like Ayaan Hirsi Ali once said: "tolerance of intolerance is cowardice". One of my favourite quotes.

Firstly, we don't all share the same values (thank goodness), we're individuals. Well, with some things - especially racism - i think it's important we fight back. But it's the means i'm concerned about, there. I mean, the EDL are horrible neo-nazis, but I don't agree with the statist solutions of UAF.

How will society work properly if we don't have anyone to protect the innocent civilians?

Republicanism used to be viewed as absolute chaos. By which i mean "small r", like myself, not "big R", like George Bush. Now granted, with republicanism, it's still the same agents. My solution would probably be community-based militia, if they were necessary, but i've heard anarchists suggest a community police force of sorts.

 

[GOP]

Firstly, we don't all share the same values (thank goodness), we're individuals. Well, with some things - especially racism - i think it's important we fight back. But it's the means i'm concerned about, there. I mean, the EDL are horrible neo-nazis, but I don't agree with the statist solutions of UAF.

I think the dangers of both radical islamist and neo-nazi groups is so great, that we should limit them for the protection of our values.

Republicanism used to be viewed as absolute chaos. By which i mean "small r", like myself, not "big R", like George Bush. Now granted, with republicanism, it's still the same agents. My solution would probably be community-based militia, if they were necessary, but i've heard anarchists suggest a community police force of sorts.

So you think the UK should be a republic?

 

[David]

No, tobacco is fine with me. But marijuana is defined as a drug, and therefore it should be illegal. People who smoke marijuana today has a very high tendency to mix further into drug relations, so forbid them from the start, instead of mixing further into drug addiction.

Strange logic. Flawed, too. I smoke marijuana yet I wouldn't even look at a cigarette, a harder drug.

 

[GOP]

Strange logic. Flawed, too. I smoke marijuana yet I wouldn't even look at a cigarette, a harder drug.

And then you have the ones who use marijuana as an entrance to a life of drugs.

 

[Dirk]

I think the dangers of both radical islamist and neo-nazi groups is so great, that we should limit them for the protection of our values.

Oh, damn, we've come down to a difference of opinion.

I might note i'm completely prepared to fight them, if it comes to it. I guess it's just my opinion on the role of the state, though.

So you think the UK should be a republic?

Well, yah, but i'm an egalitarian. (And it's kind of beside the point)

Strange logic. Flawed, too. I smoke marijuana yet I wouldn't even look at a cigarette, a harder drug.

I know, right?

 

[GOP]

Oh, damn, we've come down to a difference of opinion.

I might note i'm completely prepared to fight them, if it comes to it. I guess it's just my opinion on the role of the state, though.

If we didn't do anything to stop them, they'd be there freely to blurt out their hatred every single day. This would eventually create even more recruits. British society is already today having a tough time with radical Muslims, this will just increase if we don't start now.

 

[Dirk]

If we didn't do anything to stop them, they'd be there freely to blurt out their hatred every single day. This would eventually create even more recruits. British society is already today having a tough time with radical Muslims, this will just increase if we don't start now.

Oh, i agree. As i said, it's just a different opinion on the means, isn't it? I was quite annoyed i got to Glasgow only a day after the SDL were kicked out.

 

[GOP]

Oh, i agree. As i said, it's just a different opinion on the means, isn't it? I was quite annoyed i got to Glasgow only a day after the SDL were kicked out.

Yes, but your means will never limit the problem. If we're just gonna let them continue on on their evil spree it will be a never ending bad circle.