Politics As Usual

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Would you settle for a but-for test? But for drugs being illegal, they would be widely available and cheap and relatively unprofitable for criminals. (Your position) Check. But, but for criminals in this country providing a demand for illegal drugs at expensive prices, they would be completely unprofitable for criminals (My position: No demand = No Supply).

in 2004, I often read in the papers about Seagrams and Budweiser executives engaging in drive by shootings to kill off their competitors. Don't you?

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You can hide your face in a crowd of criminals and say its the mob at fault, but it doesn't take away your incremental contribution to the harm by way of your incremental demand. And only the Lord knows what message you send to the children of this country when you deny culpability for the harms that result from your actions. A Friday night in Southwest or Lawndale would do your sense of wrong, right.

If the drugs weren't illegal, there wouldn't be the violence associated with their trade. The real crime is sentencing our mentally ill drug addicts to jail instead of rehab.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You must not read the papers. In the last 50 wars fought in that region, the only officers that Arab troops have ever followed consistently and succesfully, have been British.

In basically every single other case, the average soldier looks for the first opportunity to surrender. So no, its not really the Saudi Army we should be worried about. OTOH, its not really the Saudi Army we should be depending on.

That was my point - we cannot depend on the Saudi Army to stop a radical wahhabi revolt.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What a draag it is getting up, huh?

No, not at all. Why do you ask?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
in 2004, I often read in the papers about Seagrams and Budweiser executives engaging in drive by shootings to kill off their competitors. Don't you?

If the drugs weren't illegal, there wouldn't be the violence associated with their trade. The real crime is sentencing our mentally ill drug addicts to jail instead of rehab.

Uhm, you can change the argument any way you like, but it doesn't absolve you from your contribution to the mayhem. Your illegal contribution to the mayhem. Your illegal contribution to the mayhem which helps explain the deaths of thousands of Americans, not to mention innocents world wide. Your denial is quite understandable.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Uhm, you can change the argument any way you like

Actually, you were the one changing the argument. The argument was about our dependence on foreign oil and how this has helped to fund terrorism.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
but it doesn't absolve you from your contribution to the mayhem.

Even if what you are saying is true, it is irrelevant to the issue of gluttonous consumption of gasoline by Americans who lack a social conscience.

When you buy Nike products, you are subsidizing child labor in 3rd world countries where the children are treated as subhumans. But that too is irrelevant to the issue of gluttonous gasoline consumption and refusal to conserve by those who choose to over-consume.

[Not Me]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinio...10365589c.html

I often agree with what George Will has to say, but I don't agree with the column he wrote above. He seems to think that the purpose of invading Iraq was to establish democracy for democracy's sake. He doesn't get the part about stimulating change in the middle east to change the environment that breeds terrorists.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinio...10365589c.html

I often agree with what George Will has to say, but I don't agree with the column he wrote above. He seems to think that the purpose of invading Iraq was to establish democracy for democracy's sake. He doesn't get the part about stimulating change in the middle east to change the environment that breeds terrorists.

(a) If the reason you enunciate was a large part of the administration's rationale for the war in Iraq, it was well-hidden and little discussed publicly beforehand.

(b) The war in Iraq most assuredly changed the environment in the Middle East, but the positive change desired _may_ flow in the long term, in a best case scenario, if Iraq becomes a peaceful, stable, well-governed, and non-agresssive state. The negative influences of the events of the war and its aftermath on the U.S. position in the Middle East serve as powerful counterweghts and have ripple effects that are very difficult to measure and predict.

(c) While you may be correct that the potential rewards for this exercise remain great, that does not mean that the policy should have been adopted. You must weigh and balance the upside gains and down-side risks, along with the likelihood of the various outcomes.

(d) The administration's calculus in that regard _may_ have been fundamentally flawed because it now appears that the administration operated under a number of false assumptions, based in part on intelligence from untrustworthy sources, and that many key pre-war predictions did not pan out.

(e) Undertaking the Iraq war as the means to accomplish your stated goal would have been taking an extraordinary risk with a low likelihood of success and high potential for severe negative consequences. At the same time, other, less drastic alternatives may have been preferable to achieve a similar goal.

I think Will understands all that very well -- and would say it prettier.

S_A_M

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Actually, you were the one changing the argument. The argument was about our dependence on foreign oil and how this has helped to fund terrorism.

Actually, we were talking about your contribution to terrorism and violence against Americans as demander of illegal narcotics, and our potential contribution to terrorism and violence against Americans as demanders of legal gasoline.

You ended up arguing that you are now blameless so long as Budweiser executives refrain from violence against their competitors. Burp.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) If the reason you enunciate was a large part of the administration's rationale for the war in Iraq, it was well-hidden and little discussed publicly beforehand.

It was discussed, but not as the only rationale for the war. The WMDs were another rationale and we have found chemical weapons in Iraq just as predicted.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(b) The war in Iraq most assuredly changed the environment in the Middle East, but the positive change desired _may_ flow in the long term, in a best case scenario, if Iraq becomes a peaceful, stable, well-governed, and non-agresssive state. The negative influences of the events of the war and its aftermath on the U.S. position in the Middle East serve as powerful counterweghts and have ripple effects that are very difficult to measure and predict.

I think in the short term, there have been both negative and positive effects on the US position in the middle east because of the war. One example of a positive effect is Libya's agreement to stop its nuclear program. That was done in direct response to Libya's fear that they were next.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(c) While you may be correct that the potential rewards for this exercise remain great, that does not mean that the policy should have been adopted. You must weigh and balance the upside gains and down-side risks, along with the likelihood of the various outcomes.

Agreed that you have to weigh and balance the ups and downs and the various outcomes. I think that was done beforehand. You may disagree with the outcome of the analysis reached by the administration, but I have no doubt that they looked at this decision critically before going forward.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(d) The administration's calculus in that regard _may_ have been fundamentally flawed because it now appears that the administration operated under a number of false assumptions, based in part on intelligence from untrustworthy sources, and that many key pre-war predictions did not pan out.

That may be true. However, that doesn't preclude a good outcome in the long term.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(e) Undertaking the Iraq war as the means to accomplish your stated goal would have been taking an extraordinary risk with a low likelihood of success and high potential for severe negative consequences. At the same time, other, less drastic alternatives may have been preferable to achieve a similar goal.

Only time will tell. June 30th will arrive soon enough at which time we will all begin to see how things might play out in the long term.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think Will understands all that very well -- and would say it prettier.

Will's point as I read his article is that our goal before the war was to establish democracy for democracy's sake. I don't think that was the case. I think along with the WMDs, the admin realized that unless the middle east becomes more secular and less oppressive with better distribution of economic resources, terrorism will only get worse. This wasn't about democracy for the sake of love of democracy as Will was claiming. It was about democracy as a means to reduce terrorism. I don't think Will understood that, or at least he didn't convey that he understood that in that column.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Actually, we were talking about your contribution to terrorism and violence against Americans as demander of illegal narcotics, and our potential contribution to terrorism and violence against Americans as demanders of legal gasoline.

No. I was talking about the latter and then you didn't like the way that made you look so then you tried to find fault with me by talking about the former. Whatever. If I do something amoral (in your opinion), that doesn't excuse what you do. So it is silly to even go that route.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
You ended up arguing that you are now blameless so long as Budweiser executives refrain from violence against their competitors. Burp.

Dude, I am starting to think you are on crack. My reference to Budweiser was to point out the lack of violence associated with the sale of alcohol today when it is legal and contrast that to how much violence was associated with the sale of alcohol under prohibition. Much violence was associated with bootleg alcohol under prohibition as organized crime ran a large part of the bootleg business in this country back then. You may have heard of this man, his name was Al Capone. He had alot of people killed to protect his business.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I'll pass on the softballs that appeared elsewhere in your post. As for what you say above, its nonsense. Would you settle for a but-for test? But for drugs being illegal, they would be widely available and cheap and relatively unprofitable for criminals. (Your position) Check. But, but for criminals in this country providing a demand for illegal drugs at expensive prices, they would be completely unprofitable for criminals (My position: No demand = No Supply). You can hide your face in a crowd of criminals and say its the mob at fault, but it doesn't take away your incremental contribution to the harm by way of your incremental demand. And only the Lord knows what message you send to the children of this country when you deny culpability for the harms that result from your actions. A Friday night in Southwest or Lawndale would do your sense of wrong, right.

Huh? Hello someone must have spiked you punch this holiday weekend. If drugs were legal, yes they would be widely availabe and cheap. There would also not be any violence associated with the "trade," and hence no innocent victims. Your but/for criminals is just way off, unless you thing druge users (i.e., those that create demand) are criminals. Seriously, do you put "drugs" in a different category as booze? As nicotine? As prescribed drugs? There is little to no violence associated with those substances, yet the only real difference is that they are legal or legal, but regulated.

efs

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
There would also not be any violence associated with the "trade," and hence no innocent victims.

I agree with everything you say including the lack of violence associated with the trade but the part about no innocent victims is stretching it. I think there would still be innocent victims associated with drug use (as opposed to the drug trade), just as there are innocent victims of alcohol use. For instance, children born to mothers who drink heavily or people killed by drunk drivers or the domestic violence that is fueled so often by alcohol consumption.

I just think that the innocent victims victimized by drug users would be no different or no worse off than those victimized by alcohol use. And for some drugs, like pot, the innocent victims would probably be less than with alcohol since pot does not make people more violent whereas alcohol frequently does.

I don't think we would see a large increase in the innocent victims, either, because the people who do drugs tend to be those who drink, too.

We could also prohibit the advertising of these substances, like we do with tobacco, and have aggressive public service campaigns, like we do with tobacco and DUIs, that educate the public. The decrease in smoking and DUI deaths can be attributed to these public service campaigns. It would work with drugs, too. We might actually see a large decrease in drug use in this country if we legalized and regulated it and used any tax revenue to finance rehab and public service campaigns.

We should ban advertising of alcohol, too, because this just glamorizes alcohol abuse. That is a real problem in this society - alcohol use is glamorized by the manufacturer's ads.

[Not Me]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/in...partner=GOOGLE

The Sunnis are killing the Shiites in Pakistan now and attacking their mosques. Apparently in retaliation for the Shiites killing a Sunni cleric. Ah, what a peaceful religion!

• LAHORE, Pakistan, May 31 — At least 14 people were killed and 38 wounded when a powerful bomb ripped through a Shiite mosque in Karachi today, according to police officials. Private media gave a higher count with at least 18 dead and 50 people wounded.
  
  A wave of violence gripped the city after the bomb blast as enraged protestors clashed with the police and went on a rampage, according to media reports.
  
  Police officials said it was too early to say if the bombing was a suicide attack. There was speculation that it was revenge for the killing Sunday of a Sunni cleric.
  
  Pakistan has witnessed a spate of terrorist attacks in recent times, thought to be carried out by local militants in collaboration with Al Qaeda.
  
  The southern port city of Karachi, the largest city in the country, with a population of 14 million, the commercial and economic center of the country, has been particularly hard hit by ethnic and sectarian violence.
  
  Today's bombing was the fourth incident of terrorism in a single month in Karachi. The president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who has vowed a crackdown against Islamic militancy and banned several sectarian groups, expressed his deep concern and vowed to take a serious note of the worsening situation in Karachi.
  
  Karachi had barely recovered from the protests of Sunday, when unidentified assailants gunned down a leading Sunni cleric in Karachi. Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, the slain cleric, was considered to be one of the most powerful Sunni voices of the country. Mr. Shamzai's assassination sparked protest from his thousands of supporters, mostly students at his schools, who clashed with the police and ransacked public property.
  
  Some government officials speculated that today's blast could be an act of retaliation.
  
  In a peculiar pattern of violence, Sunni leaders have been targeted, while Shiite mosques have been targets of suicide bombings.
  
  Sunnis make up 77 percent of the country's population of 150 million. Shiites make up 20 percent.
  
  A police officer was killed and 26 people were wounded on May 26, when two car bombs went off outside a school in Karachi, near the residence of the American consul general. On May 7, 22 people were killed when a suicide bomber attacked a Shiite mosque.
  
  The powerful bomb blast today occurred at about 7:45 p.m at Imambargah Ali Raza Mosque on the M.A. Jinnah Road, an upscale neighborhood. . According to eyewitnesses, the blast was so powerful that it resonated through a large surrounding area and its intensity shook the walls of the Shiite mosque, blowing out windows and created a crater in the dome. Television footage showed shattered glass on the floor and damaged furniture and ambulances taking worshippers with severe burns to hospitals.
  
  After the bomb blast, angry youths gathered on various roads of Karachi and damaged public and private property, the police said. The police used tear gas and batons to disperse the rioters in various parts of the city. The police said they and Rangers also exchanged gunfire with enraged protesters in different districts of Karachi. Dozens of people were reported to be injured.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
My reference to Budweiser was to point out the lack of violence associated with the sale of alcohol today when it is legal and contrast that to how much violence was associated with the sale of alcohol under prohibition. Much violence was associated with bootleg alcohol under prohibition as organized crime ran a large part of the bootleg business in this country back then. You may have heard of this man, his name was Al Capone. He had alot of people killed to protect his business.

Yes, there was certainly increased crime and violence associated with the sale of alcohol under Prohibition. However, IIRC, the best available statistical measures (not great) also suggest that there was a drastic decline in alcohol consumption during Prohibition. Any argument to legalize various drugs should take into account the strong likelihood that the comsumption of said drug(s) would drastically increase if they were legal and readily available.

It is easy to see many of the negative social effects and apparent failure of the "War on Drugs". Our current drug policies could probably be changed for the better in many ways. Still, there would probably be substantial costs associated with the legalization of (for example) heroin, or cocaine, or crack.

It is a mistake to be purely libertarian on a subject where the poor judgment of one person imposes substantial costs on others.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Yes, there was certainly increased crime and violence associated with the sale of alcohol under Prohibition. However, IIRC, the best available statistical measures (not great) also suggest that there was a drastic decline in alcohol consumption during Prohibition. Any argument to legalize various drugs should take into account the strong likelihood that the comsumption of said drug(s) would drastically increase if they were legal and readily available.

I agree that consumption might increase in the short term, but there are ways to minimize that.

After or before prohibition when the consumption was higher, were there big ad campaigns educating people on the dangers of alcohol? Or were the ads by the manufacturers glamorizing alcohol with nothing balancing that message? Did employers do random alcohol tests to see if you had been drinking?

The other way to combat it is by non-government means. For instance, employers and schools will still drug test and prohibit their employees/students from using drugs. Just because you legalize the drugs doesn't mean your employer or school cannot condition your job/enrollment on you being drug free. I think it is stupid to allow people to drink on their off hours but not to allow them to smoke pot, but I can see the reasoning behind not wanting your employees shooting heroine on their off hours.

I can't think of any legal impediment to conditioning welfare benefits on being drug free even if you make the drugs legal.

The real question for me is would we be worse or better off if the drugs were legal or at least decriminalized for users. I think there are ways to affect demand for drugs, and we would be better off without the violence of the drug trade and the users in rehab instead of in jail.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It is easy to see many of the negative social effects and apparent failure of the "War on Drugs". Our current drug policies could probably be changed for the better in many ways. Still, there would probably be substantial costs associated with the legalization of (for example) heroin, or cocaine, or crack.

But would the costs be more or less than the costs of keepign them illegal? That is the question. If we regulated the drugs, especially the advertising, and spent the money we spend on prosecuting and jailing users on rehab and education about the realities of using the hard stuff instead, would we be better off?

I think at least pot needs to be legalized. That would help some. There just is no legitimate reason that cigarettes and alcohol are legal and pot is not.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It is a mistake to be purely libertarian on a subject where the poor judgment of one person imposes substantial costs on others.

I am not purely libertarian on this topic. I am for regulation and taxation of the product. And probably something like they have in Pennsylvania with alcohol where you have to buy it in state stores.

What about alcohol, though. Doesn't the poor judgment of one person using alcohol impose substantial costs on others quite frequently? Driving drunk, fetal-alcohol syndrome, increase in domestic violence, etc.

Last I checked, we weren't having an epidemic of cocaine users crashing their cars. If anything, it would make the recreational users more alert when they were driving. I do believe domestic violence would increase with legalized cocaine.

I think what you would see if we made drugs illegal with the proper safeguards in place, is that there would be a social stigma to abusing drugs, just like there is now with abusing alcohol.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Huh? Hello someone must have spiked you punch this holiday weekend. If drugs were legal, yes they would be widely availabe and cheap. There would also not be any violence associated with the "trade," and hence no innocent victims. Your but/for criminals is just way off, unless you thing druge users (i.e., those that create demand) are criminals. Seriously, do you put "drugs" in a different category as booze? As nicotine? As prescribed drugs? There is little to no violence associated with those substances, yet the only real difference is that they are legal or legal, but regulated.

efs

I haven't scrolled before posting, but the fact that hers works does not mean that my doesn't. And the fact that mine does (my "but for" that is) clearly places drug users in the category of those responsible. They create demand. They provide high profit margins by their willingness to pay 40-100K (retail) for a kilo of cocaine derivatives. How much do Budweiser drinkers pay to keep last call going for an extra 5 minutes?

As for the "different category" question, yes, I do. "drugs" are illegal. People who use "drugs" aren't civil rights protestors sitting at an integrated lunch counter. They are selfish and immoral people who create a demand knowing that without their demand, thousands of Americans, thousands of South Americans, and thousands of others would be alive. Among those thousands are an occasional child in an inner city.

Like I said, I'm for legalization. But you tell me that those murders would occur if users weren't using. Illegally. You aren't saying that, are you?