Heartland

"NATO officials say the Taliban seems to be flush with cash, thanks to the guerrillas' alliance with prosperous opium traffickers. The fighters are paid more than $5 a day—good money in Afghanistan, and at least twice what the new Afghan National Army's 30,000 soldiers receive. It's a bad sign, too, that a shortage of local police has led Karzai to approve a plan allowing local warlords—often traffickers themselves—to rebuild their private armies. U.N. officials have spent the past three years trying to disband Afghanistan's irregular militias, which are accused of widespread human-rights abuses. Now the warlords can rearm with the government's blessing. Afghanistan is "unfortunately well on its way" to becoming a "narco-state," NATO's supreme commander, Marine Gen. Jim Jones, said before Congress last week."

For the rest of the article go to:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/n ... /?GT1=8506

Haha!

That's all i have to say about that.

It's sad, but hardly surprising.

Seriously, though, i think Taliban is one of the smallest problems the world faces, whilst MSNBC is certainly part of a bigger problem.

But i've learned my lesson never to get into political debates on the forum so this is just a statement of my views.

That´s old news. DA. As long as afghan farmers don´t get a chance to grow grocers and grain economically, you won´t see changes. What about a Fair Trade-like treaty between Afghanistan and the US to give a guarantee that those farmers can pay food for their family and school for their kids?
Cheers!

Stop with the beers already!

I'm gettin' thirsty here...

eotunun, mine's a voddy please!

Solution: legalise opium.

^ that.

Prohibition only profits the drug suppliers. Legalisation would cut their major funding source.

I doubt very much that any politician would dare suggest this solution though.

markfiend wrote:^ that.

Prohibition only profits the drug suppliers. Legalisation would cut their major funding source.

I doubt very much that any politician would dare suggest this solution though.

Just wondering when we do this legalization thing.
The people that get hooked and end up destitute,
who will take care of them?

Or at this time are you in favor of the thinning of the herd theory?

Well, for one thing, I don't necessarily think that very many people will get "hooked and destitute". For another, we already have alcoholics who are "hooked and destitute"; is that an argument for (re)introducing alcohol prohibition?

Flippancy aside, you do have a valid point of course.

I think that without the risk of arrest, many more addicts will voluntarily come forward for treatment. Also, resources that have been targeted at drug-users in a law-enforcement context could be more profitably used for treatment.

And as the legal status would tend to remove the massive profit margins of the traffickers, so th drugs themselves would be cheaper, meaning less criminality (admittedly, not no criminality) to fund drug habits.

markfiend wrote:Well, for one thing, I don't necessarily think that very many people will get "hooked and destitute". For another, we already have alcoholics who are "hooked and destitute"; is that an argument for (re)introducing alcohol prohibition?

Flippancy aside, you do have a valid point of course.

I think that without the risk of arrest, many more addicts will voluntarily come forward for treatment. Also, resources that have been targeted at drug-users in a law-enforcement context could be more profitably used for treatment.

And as the legal status would tend to remove the massive profit margins of the traffickers, so th drugs themselves would be cheaper, meaning less criminality (admittedly, not no criminality) to fund drug habits.

Well, on the one hand, yes.
On the other:
"I´m bored, let´s get a tatoo!"
"Naa, Heroin is cheaper an it´s Kool!"
That stuff is too dangerous for my taste..

9while9 wrote:Just wondering when we do this legalization thing.
The people that get hooked and end up destitute,
who will take care of them?

Because tobacco tax certainly isn't so lucrative that despite having to cover the ensuing NHS costs, it would still be financially crippling if the government were to lose it, merely because of what's left over after the medical bills

I have had a few ideas regarding the legalisation of drugs.

I believe cannabis should be an over the counter drug, as should possibley class Bs like Amphetamines.

I had the idea of putting stronger drugs on a perscription system, so they can be bought but a record is kept of consumption. eg, you have to have ID to buy them, and a database is kept recording the amount of drugs you have bought.

Obviously this falls down when other people start getting drugs for other people to help feed a sprilling out of control habit, but that happens anyway, and I'm sure that my method of control would help in many cases.

Why not undercut the drug dealers AND make tax on it? Not to mention have more support. like the 'give up smoking' things you have these days.

Maisey wrote:I have had a few ideas

I've had one:
can we have a Religion/Polotics/Bollocks section?

notice I left out the Ugly American bit

eotunun wrote:Well, on the one hand, yes.
On the other:
"I´m bored, let´s get a tatoo!"
"Naa, Heroin is cheaper an it´s Kool!"
That stuff is too dangerous for my taste..

On the other other hand, why should the government be allowed to tell its subjects "this is too dangerous for you"? Nanny statism?

I wish I could contradict you here..

One must also consider the impact addiction has on society as well the financial ramifications in making an addictive drug like heroine legal.

If it is legalized, then drugs become cheaper and easier to access and there will be more addicts. Addicts tend to be a burden on society. With the legalization of heroine, the addict's condition will be considered a medical condition. Plus, because addicts tend to spend all of their $$ on drugs, they as a group, tend to be economically disadvantaged. More addicts = more disadvanted people with a "medical condition" who need to be cared for by the government.

(Also, consider the terrible effect addiction has on children - children of addicts are often neglected - leaving those children with long-term abandonment issues and a proclivity to self-medicate.)

It would even itself out. If legal, addicts wouldn't be sent to jail. Money spent on keeping them confined would be spent on rehabilitating them, and there would also be tax. Also, it would be better of for the chilren, because their parents could get better help and wouldn't be slammed in jail for simply making a big mistake.

DarkAngel wrote:If it is legalized, then drugs become cheaper and easier to access and there will be more addicts.

As I understand it, the Dutch experience belies this assumption.

What I am referencing is my understanding of addiction. Addiction hurts familes - especially children. Whether it is a legalized addiction or not. There are very few (if any) addicts who make good parents.

Then, on the other Hand, it would restore the evolution for humans. Take it or survive.
I know, that´s a bit tough to think. It´ actually isn´t how I would see it.
Thinkng twice: How many people die each year from the legal drugs?
How many die from fast food? Or driving a car/not driving a car?
Questions, questions..

Then anyone who cares about or relies upon anything is a bad parent. The social consequences of addiction stem largely from its outlaw status.

Motz wrote:Then anyone who cares about or relies upon anything is a bad parent. The social consequences of addiction stem largely from its outlaw status.

Is this Kant's theory of can't again?

It Kant work if you Can't apply it to everything....
That is a deep rut to wallow in.

James Blast wrote:

Maisey wrote:I have had a few ideas

I've had one:
can we have a Religion/Polotics/Bollocks section?

notice I left out the Ugly American bit

I think we should have our own Jimmy Blast section. Where James
can rant and rave, say NEXT and such things as....Oh, wait
that's the General Chat section, sorry.


NEXT