[Vision2020] Failed Drug Policies from Nixon to Bush

[Donovan Arnold]

Garrett,

I do agree, if that is you point, that permanently destroying fertile land to slow down coco production is wrong. I don't have a problem with destroying the crops in general thought. 

The government should be slowing down illegal drug production on all sides. One by reducing demand, the other by reducing supply. 

Saying we should make all drugs legal, because making it illegal creates a criminal elimate otherwise not present, I think is a flawed way of thinking.

Prostitution and the selling of people is a violent trade. And would not be so if we made it legal. However, forcing people to be prostitutes and selling people is violation of the individuals rights either way. I think the same way for certain drugs,. It is so dangerous to people, we must fight it, and work against it. Even if we know we will not always win because it involves international law. 

Best Regards,

Donovan



--- On Sun, 3/1/09, Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net> wrote:
From: Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc at verizon.net>
Subject: [Vision2020] Failed Drug Policies from Nixon to Bush
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Sunday, March 1, 2009, 11:42 AM

Donovan writes:

"We are not bombing people, we are bombing crops. Crops that do nothing
but make crooks and evil men rich while forcing poor people in labor intensive
activities."


Gambling and whorehousess in Las Vegas (the words used by me in the discussion)
aren't people unless there are some inside. Crops in Columbia aren't
people, unless they are in the middle. There is a distinction, though, between
manmade objects and nature. My point was I give more value to living things than
inanimate objects, while saying destroying any of it is evil.

The US has released in Columbia a genetically engineered fungus that attacks
coca, a plant that people there have regularly ingested for thousands of years,
a plant that helps poor people get through the days of hard work. While in the
US, people enrich Starbucks for essentially the same purpose, while mostly
disregarding the enormous impact coffee plantations have on ecosystems, and the
farmers in those countries.

The fact is, the US is destroying farm land for the long term with its violent
actions, and that seems wrong, particularly when you think that it is poor
people who rely on that land for their livelihood (afterall, poor farmers down
there are often forced to grow coca for the cartels artificially enriched by the
war on drugs)

The main reason there are cocaine cartels is because cocaine is illegal. As
soon as you ban anything, you create a black market, and gangs will work that
market, using violence to ensure their market share.

Since there is a demand for cocaine in the US, there is a lot of money
involved, which makes that violence even more likely. And gangs here will
continue to fight as long as there is a demand and it is illegal.

Humans like to imbibe. I don't think that will ever change, unless every
drug user is shot on the spot. But that seems like an extreme measure to combat
what essentially is a personal issue. I'm not a fan of government regulating
things consenting adults want to do. I'm definitely not a fan of a never
ending war that seems to be making things worse.

All this is just another attempt of the US, in its moral superiority, willing
to use violence to get its way, while subjecting other countries to repressive
policies that more than likely negatively affect the poorest people there, while
enriching the elites.

gclev




=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090301/9651aba7/attachment.html