Narco Terrorism - The attack on the soul of a nation.

Well, as I said, the more dysfunctional a society the more it will seek solace in drugs. I don't have a link. I simply believe that to be true based on years of experience. Everything these days seems to need a "link" with a Wiki entry to confirm what we can see easily with our own eyes, if only we dare open them.

Of course, if one has no sense of civic or even community spirit, it follows they grow to care less about nation and no longer see people as fellow citizens, but as annoying strangers to be avoided.

So it simply doesn't matter to them who does what. They do not care. As long as they have their "balls of coke", and as long as they have their big tv to watch sports, and as long as they can ring for pizza, they simply do not care if their society becomes contaminated with....well..everything.

All they want to do is live their life and die.

Some may say that is a fair enough position, but no, it is not a fair enough position, because if our ancestors had just decided A or B did not matter, and that it was a matter of "who cares" about something else, we would not have enjoyed the fruits of their efforts, so we have no right to wreck what is left of it(not much), and we have no right to destroy nature either for that matter.

If someone can get through life doing stuff that suits them and pays no mind to the wider impact, then it doesn't say much about them as a person imo.

 

Name one.

 

US. Right now.

 

And that's the end of your argument. If you need the government to tell you what substances you can and cannot take, so be it. The rest of us do not. We can make that decision for ourselves.

 

Do you apply the same logic to all areas of social policy, or just drugs? Perhaps you believe governments' have no role to play in anything.

 

The Fall of Imperial China would have been a much better example.

If you really look at the numbers the US is doing very good right now; http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Drug_Usage#sthash.LDGkVF28.dpbs *note they cite their sources*

 

Dude, Americans are killing each other by the thousands with guns, each year. I find it hard to believe that at least a fair % of those holding the guns are not or drugs, or have no history of taking drugs..

 

Unfortunately that is one of the other consequences of government's criminalisation policies. All substances outside the circle are deemed to be bad and all inside the circle are deemed to be okay.
You want to talk about specific substances but the approach to them is obfuscated by entire classes of other substances which have very little relation to them in terms of physiological effects or subculture association.

In my opinion, the best way to get into the subcultures who abuse substances that have high addiction rates & high health costs is to break the funding of the supply chain of organised crime and class their condition as a sickness that has the effect of criminal behaviour rather than a crime which has criminality as a causal prerequisite.

Humans have a long and rich history with altered states through plants but much of that knowledge & tradition which engages respect and understanding of our environment has been lost in no small part thanks to persecution of natural healers in the middle ages. When we 'rediscovered' the relationship between humans and plants in the modern era it was taken on in an industrial scale thanks to population growth and developed logistics and displayed hedonistic rather than respectful behaviours.
A market regulated only by criminal gangs was surely only going to continue to develop ever increasingly harmful and addictive substances. Add that to a chronic social malaise and we have arrived at a very expensive place.

In my opinion the best way to reverse this trend is to pry open the jaws of criminalisation and have a rational discussion about the different classes of substances and how to allow their relationship with humans to once again be insightful and beneficial as opposed to mind-numbing and destructive.

 

Personally, I don't think criminalising drug users is the way to go. It's an illness and it's wrong to make criminals of those who are ill. What we need is a four-pronged approach. First, we need to make a serious concerted effort to root out the big game players, which I don't think we have thus far done. Secondly, we need to tackle the root CAUSES as to why it is that people feel the need to take drugs in the first place. Third, we need a joined-up programme of education in schools. Finally, we need to argue against the relaxing of laws relating to drug use on the basis that it sends out the wrong message.

 

This just reminded me of one of the most ridiculous TV advertisements I've ever seen. There were these two kids in what looked like their father's office, and they were smoking a bong. And then one kid picks up a loaded shotgun and blast the other kids' head off (implied violence of course) or maybe it was a murder/suicide sort of thing, I can't remember exactly what it was, but it basically said marijuana makes people blow each other's heads off. If you support marijuana then you support children's brains being splattered across the wall.. It's all the inanimate plant's fault. Nevermind about whoever left a loaded shotgun within child's reach.

Then I saw a really good advert.. This kid says that my brother started smoking pot when he was my age. He never got arrested.. He never got killed.. In fact, he never really did anything at all.. Then it just shows him in his mama's basement getting high..

And it's like that I can respect. Because it's honest. Many a stoner rots away doing nothing with life having their motivation destroyed by a plant. That is a concern to address. People just need be honest.

 

That's because it doesn't matter. That's the point. There are many substances that many people will turn to in order to get high, most frequently alcohol. These can all have varying degrees of damage done to a person's body and society. The fact is that we already have crimes for robbery and such, therefore there's no need to legislate behavior that infringes on nobody else's right, irrespective of how self-destructive that behavior may be.

But since you want to differentiate between different drugs, then will you support an immediate and full ban on alcohol, effective today?

 

You're going to be more specific before I can answer that one, chief...

 

Fully half of the murders in this country are because of the drug BUSINESS. Because people in the drug business cannot use lawyers to settle disputes, their only option is to use bullets instead. Were it legal, these murders would be reduced to civil court cases. Have you ever seen a shootout because Absolut and Grey Goose got into a rift?

 

It's simple. The human species likes drugs. They are, when used correctly, fun! There is an inherent and unchangeable demand for mind altering substances, and no law is ever, or could ever change that. It's an inherent trait of our species.

 

You claim individualism has brought the US to it's knees? Individualism has all but been wiped out. The infantilism that you harp about is not the same thing.

 

It may have more to do with the hellish conditions on Earth, engendered by perpetual wars on abstractions that enables the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws and imperils the greater glory of our immortal souls.

 

Ok, trout, you're clearly endorsing a far more Big Brother government than I ever would.

What's central to my premise is that it isn't the government's job to protect people from themselves -- only from others.

And since most alcohol users don't become actual alcoholics or drunk drivers, I don't see what the point of demonizing alcohol is.

 

As a rule of thumb, the more rotten and dysfuntioncal a society the more it will incline toward a life of drugs. Which then naturally compounds the initial rot. After a few decades you end up with a society gone mad, be that on class A drugs, prescription drugs, or a combination of both, not to mention free and cheap access to alcohol. Since society itself goes bad, rather than shun such types, they are validated, usually by one another. The unacceptable soon becomes acceptable.

The selfish ego centric individualist won't care. Why would they? It would go against their selfish interests and selfish needs. No use appealing to them, since they are the problem.

They are a product, a child if you will, of the unquestionable attack on society since the 60's. They were born into it. They are it. So I am under no illusions that my words shall be anything but a foreign tongue to them.

Man is, by nature, a collectivist. Not an hedonistic individualist. The collectivist is the natural postion and order of man. The hedonistic individualist is the opposite, this is a learned behaviour, NOT a the default and nature position.

We can v easily see this to be true, since had our ancestors not been collectivists and all selfishly gone off and did "their own thing", and with a "who cares" attittude, I would wager that our species would have died out. It most surely would not have made the advances that it can cite.

Man by nature is social. Why do you think prisons use isolation as a penalty? Why do you think isolation is used a form of torture? Because it goes against the natural order. It messes with the mind. As it is meant to do.

It is a fact of life, a law of nature I would suggest, that man is not only natural collectivist, but they simply need something as a glue that binds them together.

The problem is that since the 60's, the very things that acted as a glue that binds, they have all been horribly attacked or disfigured.

For instance, while not religous myself, if one were raised in a classic Christian culture, (NOT the Ted Haggart school of crack taking), then that culture would naturally shun those that took crack and crystal meth. It would simply not be seen as a good reflection on the rest of the community of which the individual were part. They simply would not raise their children to believe that such things are "okay".

By the same token, the person born and raised in that culture would be born into a sense of belonging anyway, quite the opposite of today, in which there are so many lonely and disaffected people, with nothing to identify with.

By the same token, rather than religion, you could foster a colllective love of nation (NOT the false patriotism BS), but real love of nation.

It is love of nation and the toil of our ancestors that gave Britain an industry, once the best in the World. It no longer exists. We have nothing left, and why not? Because for the past 50yrs we were taught not to take any real pride in nation, making it easy for private companies together with politicians(who have never been nationalist), carving up our industries and selling them off.

If one had a health pride in nation, by way of being part of something that was really and visibly inclusive and did positive things domestically, while NOT charging around doing bad across the World, I think this would lead to a sense of inclusion and not wanting to let the team down.

Of course, half a century of mumbo jumbo brainwashing + thousands of confusing and stupid ideas mean that when you say simple things like that, the next thing you know people start talking about S Arabia or some other silly thing.

 

Jack, I'm not an Objectivist, but with rants like the above, you encourage me to become one.

I'll take selfish individuals over a societal majority that wants to mind my personal business.

 

If that means that by way of having the worse of people in the highest and most influential of positions,it leads to a natural trickle down effect of their vice and anti virtues, then yes, I agree.

- - - Updated - - -

"rants".

What "rants".

I simply spelled out some clear and present truths, and I note how you manage to cover...NONE of them.

Typical.

 

I don't attribute the social decline of society with the 60s.

I don't even view it in decline necessarily. It's certainly different from the way it was before, but I see more good than bad in a lot of cases.

Gender equality is better, homosexual tolerance is better, racial tolerance is better, and even cultural tolerance is for the most part.

Our only areas of worry are primarily economic.

 

And yet for all that, I look around it strikes me your society has gone to crap.

Little clues like the vast number of Americans(most on drugs or drunk probably), who shoot one another each year.

I wonder how many per annum?

Is that a shining sign of progress since the 60's, for example?

Is that a symptom of this ego centred society with it's utterly ridiculous and fanciful notions of egalitarianism?

Seems it is.

 

Wealth disparity leads to crime, as do certain things about black culture.

If you left out all of the black on black murder in America, we'd have about the same homicide rates as the UK.

So, it appears to be a mostly isolated problem.

Granted, we do have plenty of white serial killers and mass murderers. And no one would suggest we have a shortage of school shootings.

However, that has to do with a combination of gun laws and mental health issues.

We have plenty of room for improvement, but we're no longer using the state to force black people to use different public facilities or businesses.

As scary as our surveillance state has become, we're not at the Red Scare level yet.

As bloody as the Iraq War was, it still pales in comparison to the Vietnam War.

So yes, things have improved overall from the 60s. Maybe the situation is different in the UK, but I'll defer to you on that one.

 

Interesting that you cite a problem with "black culture" just one post after citing unbridled "tolerance for minorities" as being only a "good thing". Yet here (if you are to be believed), there is an obvious disconnect then.

Why? Well, if it had been only a "good thing", and if unbridled liberal attitudues both in and outwith the black culture was "progressive", then there would simply not be an issue with "black culture". You have, by citing this, actually proved my point.

Let me expain, give it a fair hearing.

Once upon a time what you refer to as "black culture" was far healthier than it is now. Yes. It was. For one thing, religion and Christianity played a more central part in their community. This acted as a glue that bound them, but in a positive way, it gave them a moral anchor. Further, pre 60's, there was far more of a culture among blacks toward the nuclear family unit. Fathers and mother got married. They tended to raise the kids together. The father usually stuck around. Compare that to the mess that the black culture finds itself in today, in that regard.

A good measure of black culture being healthier as was, rather than as is, is music. I can think of some fine black music genre's of old, that were based on talent, and whose lyrics were great.

Suddenly, that goes out the window and black music seems to centre around "stars" dressed as wannabe gangsters, often with gun props, and with lyrics that degrade women, glorify drugs, and talk about killing whites and cops and other blacks.

Now, surely ANYONE can SURELY see that if you create a genre of music like that, and you pour millions at marketing it to seem sexy to a poor and single parent(at best) black teenager, clearly he is going to revere and copy that, yes?

There is just no way no one can see that, it is so logical beyond any error.

So.

Then you get them copying it en masse in real life. Then you get dead people. Incited and created by an entire music genre.

In the name of whose freedom is it to do that?


To know that relentless promotion of this genre WILL shape many young blacks to be that way, and KEEP ON doing it?

Can't you see that to see the effects, know what it does, and KEEP doing it is simply wrong?

And can't you see that if it so wrong that it causes massive problems for society, it is simply not good enough to let it be?

Surely?

 

Hey Jack, you didn't answer me.

Will you support an immediate and full alcohol ban?