Go Back  The Tool Page: Opinion » Tool » Albums » 10,000 Days » 05. The Pot
User Name
Password
Reply
Bukkhead
05-24-2006, 02:48 PM
Reply With Quote

I like it when intellectuals argue about things that, in large part, only seem to effect non-intellectuals. It's so 1843. All the great civil revolts where led by upper-middle class students. Hooray. Let's fiight for the people. How many of you are writing from jail?

The criminality of drugs is not about protecting anyone's health, well being, or moral fiber. Conservative Elites have a VESTED interest in maintaining a large, impoverished populace. This populace joins the army, works essential jobs at low wages, and, like it or not, VOTES for more conservatives. Legalize drugs if you want-- American corporations would not make billions of dollars, nor would the government enjoy a huge tax income. People would still buy the drugs from the same sources as before. Keeping drugs illegal means keeping people in jail, justifies the excessive force of government intervention, and keeps po' folks po.

And even if they COULD make a few billion from legal drugs, it doesn't compare to the few trillion they make from legal wars.

Just my opinion, but then I'm a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Old 05-24-2006, 02:48 PM   #41
Level 4 - Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 33
Bincount™: 0
Re: You're an Alcoholic

I like it when intellectuals argue about things that, in large part, only seem to effect non-intellectuals. It's so 1843. All the great civil revolts where led by upper-middle class students. Hooray. Let's fiight for the people. How many of you are writing from jail?

The criminality of drugs is not about protecting anyone's health, well being, or moral fiber. Conservative Elites have a VESTED interest in maintaining a large, impoverished populace. This populace joins the army, works essential jobs at low wages, and, like it or not, VOTES for more conservatives. Legalize drugs if you want-- American corporations would not make billions of dollars, nor would the government enjoy a huge tax income. People would still buy the drugs from the same sources as before. Keeping drugs illegal means keeping people in jail, justifies the excessive force of government intervention, and keeps po' folks po.

And even if they COULD make a few billion from legal drugs, it doesn't compare to the few trillion they make from legal wars.

Just my opinion, but then I'm a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
OFFLINE |   Reply With Quote
Dredg's Avatar Dredg
05-24-2006, 03:09 PM
Reply With Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex in Chains
I think this song has to be about the War on Drugs (i.e. the War on Personal Freedom -- thank you, Bill Hicks). The song is clearly about hypocrisy -- I think we can all agree on that -- but why the double entendre? The pot calling the kettle black is pretty cliché, and I don’t see Tool doing that without actually relating the song to marijuana in some way.
actually Maynard does not use the phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" He uses the phrase as "if you piss all over my black kettle". He is using the phrase but adding his own little creative catch to it.

Quote:
Additionally, we all know how much Tool loves Bill Hicks, and this was one of his favorite topics (one of my all-time favorite Hicks quotes was “That’s an egg, that’s a frying pan, that’s a stove, you’re an alcoholic . . . Dude, I’m tripping right now, and I still see that’s a fucking egg”). I’m surprised no one has (to my knowledge) pointed this out yet.
I think everybody understands that Tool and Bill Hicks know each other and like each others art work. But dude, what are you pointing out?

Quote:
(Side note: Did any other Bill Hicks fans love the “stealth banana” reference in “Rosetta Stoned”?)
I dont know, Bill Hicks refers to the stealth banana when he discusses the fact of weapons of mass distruction - instead of shooting stuff that kills people why not shoot stuff that will help people - like food...in this case a "stealth banana"

Quote:
The hypocrisy to which this song refers (and this is my opinion, but I’m personally convinced) is that of a government which allows and even participates in the everyday use of one drug -- alcohol* -- while condemning the use of several others, including marijuana.

where are the alcohol references? you go from Alcohol to a Kangroo court without explaining where you find the hypocrisy of alcohol.


Quote:
The kangaroo imagery probably does refer to a kangaroo court (look it up if you’re still unclear on this subject), which makes a lot of sense in a country that has mandatory minimum sentences.
correct

Quote:
The kangaroo is the government, he’s as guilty as anyone else (how many politicians don’t drink?), and he’s stoned.

You are all over the place. "he is as guilty as anyone else"....you then ask the question "how many politicans dont drink?" as if that has something to do with a Kangaroo court..


Quote:
“Stoned” can refer to drunkenness (not very often today), but I think that word was chosen (along with, of course, “high”) to show that there’s not really a lot of difference between alcohol and marijuana (many will make the argument that marijuana is actually safer, but that’s beside the point).
where is stoned ever mentioned in the song "The Pot"? And why would you associate being "stoned" as being "drunk".


What if Maynard is puting a play on words with the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black"...

The pot pisses on the black kettle, and the black kettle thinks "the pot" is high? MAYBE just MAYBE HIGH could be meant as "HIGH HORSE" "you must of been on your HIGH HORSE." Someone thinking they are higher then the other would make a judgement even if they are a hypocrite.


Quote:
This song, in my admittedly amateur opinion, is an attack on a twenty-plus-year government condemnation of “drugs” while practically endorsing alcohol.

actually the war on pot is more like a 71 year condemnation. 80 years ago Herion was really popular and kinda added to the stigma to pot.


Quote:
*Okay, there’s tobacco, etc. But I think they’re principally concerned with booze here.
I read through this post and failed to read where you backed up your thoery about booze with the lyrics of the song. You didnt mention once where booze was being refered to in the song.


I give this interpertation a D.

Last edited by Dredg; 05-24-2006 at 03:13 PM..
Old 05-24-2006, 03:09 PM   #42
Level 9 - Obstreperous
 
Dredg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 1,014
Bincount™: 15
Re: You're an Alcoholic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex in Chains
I think this song has to be about the War on Drugs (i.e. the War on Personal Freedom -- thank you, Bill Hicks). The song is clearly about hypocrisy -- I think we can all agree on that -- but why the double entendre? The pot calling the kettle black is pretty cliché, and I don’t see Tool doing that without actually relating the song to marijuana in some way.
actually Maynard does not use the phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" He uses the phrase as "if you piss all over my black kettle". He is using the phrase but adding his own little creative catch to it.

Quote:
Additionally, we all know how much Tool loves Bill Hicks, and this was one of his favorite topics (one of my all-time favorite Hicks quotes was “That’s an egg, that’s a frying pan, that’s a stove, you’re an alcoholic . . . Dude, I’m tripping right now, and I still see that’s a fucking egg”). I’m surprised no one has (to my knowledge) pointed this out yet.
I think everybody understands that Tool and Bill Hicks know each other and like each others art work. But dude, what are you pointing out?

Quote:
(Side note: Did any other Bill Hicks fans love the “stealth banana” reference in “Rosetta Stoned”?)
I dont know, Bill Hicks refers to the stealth banana when he discusses the fact of weapons of mass distruction - instead of shooting stuff that kills people why not shoot stuff that will help people - like food...in this case a "stealth banana"

Quote:
The hypocrisy to which this song refers (and this is my opinion, but I’m personally convinced) is that of a government which allows and even participates in the everyday use of one drug -- alcohol* -- while condemning the use of several others, including marijuana.

where are the alcohol references? you go from Alcohol to a Kangroo court without explaining where you find the hypocrisy of alcohol.


Quote:
The kangaroo imagery probably does refer to a kangaroo court (look it up if you’re still unclear on this subject), which makes a lot of sense in a country that has mandatory minimum sentences.
correct

Quote:
The kangaroo is the government, he’s as guilty as anyone else (how many politicians don’t drink?), and he’s stoned.

You are all over the place. "he is as guilty as anyone else"....you then ask the question "how many politicans dont drink?" as if that has something to do with a Kangaroo court..


Quote:
“Stoned” can refer to drunkenness (not very often today), but I think that word was chosen (along with, of course, “high”) to show that there’s not really a lot of difference between alcohol and marijuana (many will make the argument that marijuana is actually safer, but that’s beside the point).
where is stoned ever mentioned in the song "The Pot"? And why would you associate being "stoned" as being "drunk".


What if Maynard is puting a play on words with the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black"...

The pot pisses on the black kettle, and the black kettle thinks "the pot" is high? MAYBE just MAYBE HIGH could be meant as "HIGH HORSE" "you must of been on your HIGH HORSE." Someone thinking they are higher then the other would make a judgement even if they are a hypocrite.


Quote:
This song, in my admittedly amateur opinion, is an attack on a twenty-plus-year government condemnation of “drugs” while practically endorsing alcohol.

actually the war on pot is more like a 71 year condemnation. 80 years ago Herion was really popular and kinda added to the stigma to pot.


Quote:
*Okay, there’s tobacco, etc. But I think they’re principally concerned with booze here.
I read through this post and failed to read where you backed up your thoery about booze with the lyrics of the song. You didnt mention once where booze was being refered to in the song.


I give this interpertation a D.

Last edited by Dredg; 05-24-2006 at 03:13 PM..
OFFLINE |   Reply With Quote
swampyfool's Avatar swampyfool
05-24-2006, 05:04 PM
Reply With Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypocrite
What you seem to be ignoring is that the regulation of these drugs isnt just to protect the safety of those who would take them, its to protect other innocent people in society who can be effected by them. I hardley think regulation of unhealthy foods or exersice is analagous at all becaue those things do not harm others. Unlike drug addicts who turn to crime, neglect their childern, etc. but someone as "intelligent" as you would obviously see that flaw in your reasoning. ( i tried to say earlier i wasnt attempting to offend or call anyone a moron i just worded my argument wrong, but since you insist i guess we will go there).
Alright. Let me start by saying that I am not questioning the intelligence of any of the participants of this debate. I would actually like to compliment both sides for raising insightful points. My passion for this subject may motivate me toward imflamatory language, but whatever happens just remember . . . You're all very inteligent.

<finishes gushing>

People who eat unhealthy foods do cause detriment to our society at large. Fast food restaurants such as McDonald's, Burger King, Taco Bell, et al, have revolutionized the entire meat and poultry industries as we knew them (read "Fast Food Nation"). These entities have placed a demand on meatpacking facilities for huge quantities of meat at the lowest price possible. Their (fast food) business has grown so large, that over time the success of your business in this field (meatpacking) is dependent upon how well you cater to that demand.

That means cutting your own production costs which has involved negative change on many levels. For one, there has been a shift in diet from grass to corn and wheat. Second, since the cows no longer eat grass, there is no need to own hundreds of acres of pasture, and the cows are kept in very close quarters. Third, they are pumped full of growth hormones to increase the yield of meat per animal and fertility hormones to increase the yeild of animals per animal. Fourth, they are pumped full of insane levels of antibiotics, whether or not they show signs of sickness, in order to decrease the number of lost head of cattle (cash cows, if you will). Fifth, the slaughterhouse has been turned into a marvel of modern technology, complete with an assembly-line cow killer that uses a state-of-the-art drainage system to catch the blood and undesirable innards (of which there aren't many after the hot dog people's needs are met) and channels them into a huge retension pond. The combination of poor diet, extreme inactivity in captivity, a flood of foreign chemicals and the unsanitary killing floor culminate in two results that are negative for everybody (healthy and unhealthy eaters alike).

The first drawback is to our environment. The retension pond (which houses the waste of the cows in addition to their blood and entrails) is an unholy mass of shit, blood, urine and guts that is saturated in hormones and antibiotics. This mass that really should not be is assimilated into the groundwater supply through direct transfer with the ground in the immediate vicinity and also scattered throughout the region through evaporation, condensation and finally, percipitation. Ever wonder why the onset of puberty is coming earlier and earlier with each new wave of children? Maybe it's got something to do with fertility hormones in the water supply. Also, the compromised diet for the cows increases the methane content of their farts, thus adversely effecting the quality of our air (funny but relevant).

The second drawback comes as the supply of the meatpacking industry has finally caught up with the demand of the fastfood industry; in fact, the supply has surpassed the demand. Now (and by now, I mean since the early to mid 80's), our grocery stores no longer have access to meat that is not mass-produced in factory farm conditions. We all are forced to avail ourselves of third- and fourth-rate, fast food meat products- even when we cook it in our own homes. That is unless you live in an urban center with a good concentration of yuppies (which is costly to both the pocketbook and the soul- ugh, fuckin' A Whole Foods, GAG), or up the road from an organic or natural livestock producer (which describes a very small portion of our population). Thus, it can be said that people who have funded the meat revolution by supporting its proponents- or people who eat unhealthy foods- are doing harm to a very large portion of society. I should mention that I am a vegetarian (for the sake of disclosure and transparency) because of this phenomenon, and because of the cruelty involved (on a case by case basis and on the whole).

Do I think that unhealthy foods merit severe regulation? No. I do believe that the there should be some serious reform in the USDA- and by reform I mean they should no longer be staffed by "ex"-lieutenants of major livestock conglomorates- but I digress . . . I merely point out that you are standing on a slippery slope (law school phrase) with your argument about the violence of drug addicts. Arguments can be made about the negative, externalized implications of the most seemingly benign things and activities- and many of them are valid.

But I can poke holes in it from many other angles. Recent studies have shown that the majority of violent drug addicts are people who have proven themselves predisposed to violence before they were addicts. Conversely, most non-violent people who develope habits that outgrow their means tend to start selling drugs to increase their means. Criminal? Yes, but that's kinda circular now, isn't it? Furthermore, in Switzerland, the problem of random violence and street crime associated with rampant cocaine addiction has been alleviated by a social program that both legalized cocaine and compelled the government to supply it- free of charge- at medical facilities. Street crime has all but disappeared, the police are free to pursue serious crime, and usage has actually declined. By their constitution (or whatever they call their defining document), the Swiss people had to vote on (I believe it was) five, semi-annual continuations before the program became permanent- which they did.
__________________
Holes in what's left of my reason
Holes in the knees of my blues
Odds against me been increasing
But I'll pull through
Old 05-24-2006, 05:04 PM   #43
Ron Swampson
 
swampyfool's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: sweet home
Posts: 3,064
Bincount™: 5576
Re: You're an Alcoholic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypocrite
What you seem to be ignoring is that the regulation of these drugs isnt just to protect the safety of those who would take them, its to protect other innocent people in society who can be effected by them. I hardley think regulation of unhealthy foods or exersice is analagous at all becaue those things do not harm others. Unlike drug addicts who turn to crime, neglect their childern, etc. but someone as "intelligent" as you would obviously see that flaw in your reasoning. ( i tried to say earlier i wasnt attempting to offend or call anyone a moron i just worded my argument wrong, but since you insist i guess we will go there).
Alright. Let me start by saying that I am not questioning the intelligence of any of the participants of this debate. I would actually like to compliment both sides for raising insightful points. My passion for this subject may motivate me toward imflamatory language, but whatever happens just remember . . . You're all very inteligent.

<finishes gushing>

People who eat unhealthy foods do cause detriment to our society at large. Fast food restaurants such as McDonald's, Burger King, Taco Bell, et al, have revolutionized the entire meat and poultry industries as we knew them (read "Fast Food Nation"). These entities have placed a demand on meatpacking facilities for huge quantities of meat at the lowest price possible. Their (fast food) business has grown so large, that over time the success of your business in this field (meatpacking) is dependent upon how well you cater to that demand.

That means cutting your own production costs which has involved negative change on many levels. For one, there has been a shift in diet from grass to corn and wheat. Second, since the cows no longer eat grass, there is no need to own hundreds of acres of pasture, and the cows are kept in very close quarters. Third, they are pumped full of growth hormones to increase the yield of meat per animal and fertility hormones to increase the yeild of animals per animal. Fourth, they are pumped full of insane levels of antibiotics, whether or not they show signs of sickness, in order to decrease the number of lost head of cattle (cash cows, if you will). Fifth, the slaughterhouse has been turned into a marvel of modern technology, complete with an assembly-line cow killer that uses a state-of-the-art drainage system to catch the blood and undesirable innards (of which there aren't many after the hot dog people's needs are met) and channels them into a huge retension pond. The combination of poor diet, extreme inactivity in captivity, a flood of foreign chemicals and the unsanitary killing floor culminate in two results that are negative for everybody (healthy and unhealthy eaters alike).

The first drawback is to our environment. The retension pond (which houses the waste of the cows in addition to their blood and entrails) is an unholy mass of shit, blood, urine and guts that is saturated in hormones and antibiotics. This mass that really should not be is assimilated into the groundwater supply through direct transfer with the ground in the immediate vicinity and also scattered throughout the region through evaporation, condensation and finally, percipitation. Ever wonder why the onset of puberty is coming earlier and earlier with each new wave of children? Maybe it's got something to do with fertility hormones in the water supply. Also, the compromised diet for the cows increases the methane content of their farts, thus adversely effecting the quality of our air (funny but relevant).

The second drawback comes as the supply of the meatpacking industry has finally caught up with the demand of the fastfood industry; in fact, the supply has surpassed the demand. Now (and by now, I mean since the early to mid 80's), our grocery stores no longer have access to meat that is not mass-produced in factory farm conditions. We all are forced to avail ourselves of third- and fourth-rate, fast food meat products- even when we cook it in our own homes. That is unless you live in an urban center with a good concentration of yuppies (which is costly to both the pocketbook and the soul- ugh, fuckin' A Whole Foods, GAG), or up the road from an organic or natural livestock producer (which describes a very small portion of our population). Thus, it can be said that people who have funded the meat revolution by supporting its proponents- or people who eat unhealthy foods- are doing harm to a very large portion of society. I should mention that I am a vegetarian (for the sake of disclosure and transparency) because of this phenomenon, and because of the cruelty involved (on a case by case basis and on the whole).

Do I think that unhealthy foods merit severe regulation? No. I do believe that the there should be some serious reform in the USDA- and by reform I mean they should no longer be staffed by "ex"-lieutenants of major livestock conglomorates- but I digress . . . I merely point out that you are standing on a slippery slope (law school phrase) with your argument about the violence of drug addicts. Arguments can be made about the negative, externalized implications of the most seemingly benign things and activities- and many of them are valid.

But I can poke holes in it from many other angles. Recent studies have shown that the majority of violent drug addicts are people who have proven themselves predisposed to violence before they were addicts. Conversely, most non-violent people who develope habits that outgrow their means tend to start selling drugs to increase their means. Criminal? Yes, but that's kinda circular now, isn't it? Furthermore, in Switzerland, the problem of random violence and street crime associated with rampant cocaine addiction has been alleviated by a social program that both legalized cocaine and compelled the government to supply it- free of charge- at medical facilities. Street crime has all but disappeared, the police are free to pursue serious crime, and usage has actually declined. By their constitution (or whatever they call their defining document), the Swiss people had to vote on (I believe it was) five, semi-annual continuations before the program became permanent- which they did.
__________________
Holes in what's left of my reason
Holes in the knees of my blues
Odds against me been increasing
But I'll pull through
OFFLINE |   Reply With Quote
swampyfool's Avatar swampyfool
05-24-2006, 07:30 PM
Reply With Quote

And now on to your second paragraph . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypocrite
Additionally since your so concerned about government interference in our private lifes isn't it the least bit disconcerting to you that you are backing an idea that would allow the government to make BILLIONS of dollars by selling its own people poison? doesn't the government sell us enough shit, as it is without allowing them to profit from this too? yes lets just sit back, legalize it up and let people do as they will, while the government gets even more filthy rich by exploiting human zombies. Good solution. I recognize the criminal aspect of the drug trade leads to alot of crime and the like but legalization doesnt seem like a rational solution to me. Like you said treatment and education are EXTREMELY important.
Now here's where I think you are being a very silly monkey, indeed (sorry, listening to Right In Two). An investigation into Afghanistan's present predicament will show you many things. First, the U.S. has forged its "Northern Alliance" by uniting warlords whose militias were (and are-now more than ever) financed by opium production. Second, since these warlords liberated the Afghani people from the Taliban (or exiled the political party that had outlawed opium production thus decimating their funding- you choose!), the amount of Afghani opium, heroin and hashish available on the world market has skyrocketed exponentially (just check for the Arabic writing that says "Thank you for funding our efforts to erradicate your kind," impressed into the next brick of killer hash you acquire). Third, in the interactions between the U.S. Armed Forces and the warlord-militias, our personel are routinely in immediate proximity to mountainside farms teeming with opium and cannabis, yet they do nothing. The Pentagon's official position is that matters of illegal drug production are legal issues and thus not within the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense (of course, Latin Americans may challenge the validity of this claim as they are showered in an extra-powerful formulation of Round-Up by American military aircraft). Fourth, the last time our military employed a strategy like this (by uniting opium-producing warlords to rid Afghanistan of the Soviet menace) also happened to coincide with the last big American heroin boom in the 80's.

Do I have to continue to enumerate coincidences, or is the conspiracy theorist in you ('cause I know you all have one) already foaming at the mouth? I personally don't believe that there is any other logical conclusion to draw other than our military would wipe out the opium producers if the government wasn't making a shitload of money from the distribution of the product. There is no doubt in my mind that by the beginning of the next decade, we will all be subjected to mass-media coverage of Congressional hearings into our second Afghani expedition's very own version of the Iran-Contra scandal. Maybe the scapegoats in this one will have cushy, cabinet jobs under the next round of Republican leadership just like the guys on W.'s cabinet . . . but agian, I digress . . .

The fact is that the United States is a complicit- if not founding- member of the extant drug trafficking operations in the world; and our military is deployed frequently to further that interest. Our actions in Kosovo were consistent with these interests (if you want to do some intense research, look up the Kosovo Liberation Army, aka the KLA, aka Eastern European mules who connected Afghani hash and heroin with the Western European market).

Our installations of brutal dictators all over South and Central America have certainly been consistent with these efforts. This may seem to be in contrast to the policy of military planes dusting Latin America with defoliants, but climb a little deeper down the rabbit hole. As Noam Chomsky points out in "Plan Columbia" (an excellent, one-hour documentary that does a much better job of enumerating the layers of this phenomenon than I am), crop dusting is actually the least cost-effective means of attacking the supply and demand of which we are aware.

So why do we do it? Twofold subterfuge. First of all, the majority of the money in such military programs goes to defense contractors (aircraft) and chemical manufacturers (Round Up=DuPont), so American corporate interest is satisfied. Second, implementing a program like this provides the distraction that allows the American government to sell its people a bill of goods, while simultaneously serving as a safety net that will serve to discredit any attempts to expose their actual motives. The age of information has brought the American people into greater contact with the policies of its government, and has given us the ability to cast a spotlight into the blackness that encompasses our nation's covert agendae.

Thus the nature of the game has shifted; it is no longer sufficient to be secretive when operating an enterprise of this magnitude. Our government must distract us with one hand while running the show behind its back with the other; they persecute drug addicts and suppliers with their public hand while they profit from their cultivation of addiction with the other.

As we train and arm militaries for our installed dictators accross Latin America; and then suppliment that with similarly trained and better-armed, independent militias; it is no wonder that the puppets mimic their pupeteers. The independent para-militaries, whose job it is to uproot dissent in ways that the sanctioned military cannot, must find a way to sustain themselves. They make deals with traffickers to get in on the best action available, using as a negotiating chip, their ability to influence the official military. Thus, the traffickers, the paramilitaries, and the official military work in shadowed concert to force the civilian population into a Coca economy; dedicated to the growth, refinery and transportation of Coca/Cocaine.

Like in America, the innocent masses are caught between the crosshairs of a very profitable hypocrisy. In the U.S., when we are waylaid in this quagmire, we get jailtime- the severity of which I in no way denegrate. But in the third-world, a person is more likely to become a hushed up statistic in the massacre of an entire flyspeck village; or to become the victim of brutal disfigurement/dismemberment torture (often without hopes of obtaining information, but rather of sending a message); or just forced into a life of exploited labor devoted to cocaine production.

The sad reality that rests at the bottom of this rabbit hole is that the biggest gains reaped in this cycle of hypocrisy and oppression are reaped by the military-industrial complex of the United States government. I call you a "silly monkey" because you assert that the legalization of drugs would facilitate multi-billion dollar tax revenues for our government. I call you "silly monkey" because I frequently have to burst the bubble of my inner-idealist by realizing that humans may never see the reversal of this hypocrisy precisiely because of the unknown billions that they stand to gain by propagating it. The system that our government eschews is just so twisted and rife with tragedy that I almost welcome the inevitable coming of our Chinese overlords. The pay and the hours may suck, but at least the Communists and Confuscianists don't really go for the whole drug thing, though they may be learning . . . but one final time, I digress . . .

Allow me to leave you with this . . . I certainly do not think that an honest evaluation of the facts says that there is no distinction between the so-called "soft" drugs and "hard" drugs; I merely assert that this distinction is implicitly a medical one and not a legal one. Stay minded of the model of the 18th and 21st ammendments to the constitution (prohibition of alcohol, the hardest drug of 'em all- see Bill Hicks): the years between the respective passages of these ammendments bore witness to a.) an increase in the consumption of alcohol; b.) an increase in the profitability of alcohol; c.) a revitalization of the Italian Mafia, which had been strugling to maintain its existence, after the lead of Al Capon. Prohibition is not in effective tool in combating the enigma of drug abuse. Remember also, the Swiss model for handling cocaine when you contemplate the validity of the "legalize all drugs" argument. I personally believe that it is the only way to minimize the potential harm of drug abuse. Thanks for letting me bore you by responding in disortation form to your intelligent points. Sorry to single you out, but as you can see, when the spirit moves me . . .
__________________
Holes in what's left of my reason
Holes in the knees of my blues
Odds against me been increasing
But I'll pull through
Old 05-24-2006, 07:30 PM   #44
Ron Swampson
 
swampyfool's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: sweet home
Posts: 3,064
Bincount™: 5576
Re: You're an Alcoholic

And now on to your second paragraph . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypocrite
Additionally since your so concerned about government interference in our private lifes isn't it the least bit disconcerting to you that you are backing an idea that would allow the government to make BILLIONS of dollars by selling its own people poison? doesn't the government sell us enough shit, as it is without allowing them to profit from this too? yes lets just sit back, legalize it up and let people do as they will, while the government gets even more filthy rich by exploiting human zombies. Good solution. I recognize the criminal aspect of the drug trade leads to alot of crime and the like but legalization doesnt seem like a rational solution to me. Like you said treatment and education are EXTREMELY important.
Now here's where I think you are being a very silly monkey, indeed (sorry, listening to Right In Two). An investigation into Afghanistan's present predicament will show you many things. First, the U.S. has forged its "Northern Alliance" by uniting warlords whose militias were (and are-now more than ever) financed by opium production. Second, since these warlords liberated the Afghani people from the Taliban (or exiled the political party that had outlawed opium production thus decimating their funding- you choose!), the amount of Afghani opium, heroin and hashish available on the world market has skyrocketed exponentially (just check for the Arabic writing that says "Thank you for funding our efforts to erradicate your kind," impressed into the next brick of killer hash you acquire). Third, in the interactions between the U.S. Armed Forces and the warlord-militias, our personel are routinely in immediate proximity to mountainside farms teeming with opium and cannabis, yet they do nothing. The Pentagon's official position is that matters of illegal drug production are legal issues and thus not within the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense (of course, Latin Americans may challenge the validity of this claim as they are showered in an extra-powerful formulation of Round-Up by American military aircraft). Fourth, the last time our military employed a strategy like this (by uniting opium-producing warlords to rid Afghanistan of the Soviet menace) also happened to coincide with the last big American heroin boom in the 80's.

Do I have to continue to enumerate coincidences, or is the conspiracy theorist in you ('cause I know you all have one) already foaming at the mouth? I personally don't believe that there is any other logical conclusion to draw other than our military would wipe out the opium producers if the government wasn't making a shitload of money from the distribution of the product. There is no doubt in my mind that by the beginning of the next decade, we will all be subjected to mass-media coverage of Congressional hearings into our second Afghani expedition's very own version of the Iran-Contra scandal. Maybe the scapegoats in this one will have cushy, cabinet jobs under the next round of Republican leadership just like the guys on W.'s cabinet . . . but agian, I digress . . .

The fact is that the United States is a complicit- if not founding- member of the extant drug trafficking operations in the world; and our military is deployed frequently to further that interest. Our actions in Kosovo were consistent with these interests (if you want to do some intense research, look up the Kosovo Liberation Army, aka the KLA, aka Eastern European mules who connected Afghani hash and heroin with the Western European market).

Our installations of brutal dictators all over South and Central America have certainly been consistent with these efforts. This may seem to be in contrast to the policy of military planes dusting Latin America with defoliants, but climb a little deeper down the rabbit hole. As Noam Chomsky points out in "Plan Columbia" (an excellent, one-hour documentary that does a much better job of enumerating the layers of this phenomenon than I am), crop dusting is actually the least cost-effective means of attacking the supply and demand of which we are aware.

So why do we do it? Twofold subterfuge. First of all, the majority of the money in such military programs goes to defense contractors (aircraft) and chemical manufacturers (Round Up=DuPont), so American corporate interest is satisfied. Second, implementing a program like this provides the distraction that allows the American government to sell its people a bill of goods, while simultaneously serving as a safety net that will serve to discredit any attempts to expose their actual motives. The age of information has brought the American people into greater contact with the policies of its government, and has given us the ability to cast a spotlight into the blackness that encompasses our nation's covert agendae.

Thus the nature of the game has shifted; it is no longer sufficient to be secretive when operating an enterprise of this magnitude. Our government must distract us with one hand while running the show behind its back with the other; they persecute drug addicts and suppliers with their public hand while they profit from their cultivation of addiction with the other.

As we train and arm militaries for our installed dictators accross Latin America; and then suppliment that with similarly trained and better-armed, independent militias; it is no wonder that the puppets mimic their pupeteers. The independent para-militaries, whose job it is to uproot dissent in ways that the sanctioned military cannot, must find a way to sustain themselves. They make deals with traffickers to get in on the best action available, using as a negotiating chip, their ability to influence the official military. Thus, the traffickers, the paramilitaries, and the official military work in shadowed concert to force the civilian population into a Coca economy; dedicated to the growth, refinery and transportation of Coca/Cocaine.

Like in America, the innocent masses are caught between the crosshairs of a very profitable hypocrisy. In the U.S., when we are waylaid in this quagmire, we get jailtime- the severity of which I in no way denegrate. But in the third-world, a person is more likely to become a hushed up statistic in the massacre of an entire flyspeck village; or to become the victim of brutal disfigurement/dismemberment torture (often without hopes of obtaining information, but rather of sending a message); or just forced into a life of exploited labor devoted to cocaine production.

The sad reality that rests at the bottom of this rabbit hole is that the biggest gains reaped in this cycle of hypocrisy and oppression are reaped by the military-industrial complex of the United States government. I call you a "silly monkey" because you assert that the legalization of drugs would facilitate multi-billion dollar tax revenues for our government. I call you "silly monkey" because I frequently have to burst the bubble of my inner-idealist by realizing that humans may never see the reversal of this hypocrisy precisiely because of the unknown billions that they stand to gain by propagating it. The system that our government eschews is just so twisted and rife with tragedy that I almost welcome the inevitable coming of our Chinese overlords. The pay and the hours may suck, but at least the Communists and Confuscianists don't really go for the whole drug thing, though they may be learning . . . but one final time, I digress . . .

Allow me to leave you with this . . . I certainly do not think that an honest evaluation of the facts says that there is no distinction between the so-called "soft" drugs and "hard" drugs; I merely assert that this distinction is implicitly a medical one and not a legal one. Stay minded of the model of the 18th and 21st ammendments to the constitution (prohibition of alcohol, the hardest drug of 'em all- see Bill Hicks): the years between the respective passages of these ammendments bore witness to a.) an increase in the consumption of alcohol; b.) an increase in the profitability of alcohol; c.) a revitalization of the Italian Mafia, which had been strugling to maintain its existence, after the lead of Al Capon. Prohibition is not in effective tool in combating the enigma of drug abuse. Remember also, the Swiss model for handling cocaine when you contemplate the validity of the "legalize all drugs" argument. I personally believe that it is the only way to minimize the potential harm of drug abuse. Thanks for letting me bore you by responding in disortation form to your intelligent points. Sorry to single you out, but as you can see, when the spirit moves me . . .
__________________
Holes in what's left of my reason
Holes in the knees of my blues
Odds against me been increasing
But I'll pull through
OFFLINE |   Reply With Quote
formerlycontent's Avatar formerlycontent
05-25-2006, 03:42 AM
Reply With Quote

haha i was reading that while i was throwing back a glass of rum & coke & had a ciggarette in my hand. omg i am addicted to tobacco & alcohol, hell no, please no, say it isnt so. well.. actually, i dont really care. i enjoy drinking & smoking, lots of people die as a direct consequence of partaking in an activity which makes them happy ie. sky diving, mountain climbing, rough sex etc. I don't really see how drinking half a dozen beers after work and smoking a pack of marlboro is as bad as destroying all sense of reality as say meth or mushrooms will do. Ok sure, im not an alcoholic, and constant heavy drinking im sure does destroy families and that is never going to be a good thing, but in relative moderation, i see no problem. so on that note, i'm going to get myself a drink ;) cheers
Old 05-25-2006, 03:42 AM   #45
Banned.
 
formerlycontent's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 537
Bincount™: 212
Re: You're an Alcoholic

haha i was reading that while i was throwing back a glass of rum & coke & had a ciggarette in my hand. omg i am addicted to tobacco & alcohol, hell no, please no, say it isnt so. well.. actually, i dont really care. i enjoy drinking & smoking, lots of people die as a direct consequence of partaking in an activity which makes them happy ie. sky diving, mountain climbing, rough sex etc. I don't really see how drinking half a dozen beers after work and smoking a pack of marlboro is as bad as destroying all sense of reality as say meth or mushrooms will do. Ok sure, im not an alcoholic, and constant heavy drinking im sure does destroy families and that is never going to be a good thing, but in relative moderation, i see no problem. so on that note, i'm going to get myself a drink ;) cheers
OFFLINE |   Reply With Quote
swampyfool's Avatar swampyfool
05-25-2006, 07:22 AM
Reply With Quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by formerlycontent
haha i was reading that while i was throwing back a glass of rum & coke & had a ciggarette in my hand. omg i am addicted to tobacco & alcohol, hell no, please no, say it isnt so. well.. actually, i dont really care. i enjoy drinking & smoking, lots of people die as a direct consequence of partaking in an activity which makes them happy ie. sky diving, mountain climbing, rough sex etc. I don't really see how drinking half a dozen beers after work and smoking a pack of marlboro is as bad as destroying all sense of reality as say meth or mushrooms will do. Ok sure, im not an alcoholic, and constant heavy drinking im sure does destroy families and that is never going to be a good thing, but in relative moderation, i see no problem. so on that note, i'm going to get myself a drink ;) cheers
Cheers
__________________
Holes in what's left of my reason
Holes in the knees of my blues
Odds against me been increasing
But I'll pull through
Old 05-25-2006, 07:22 AM   #46
Ron Swampson
 
swampyfool's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: sweet home
Posts: 3,064
Bincount™: 5576
Re: You're an Alcoholic

Quote:
Originally Posted by formerlycontent
haha i was reading that while i was throwing back a glass of rum & coke & had a ciggarette in my hand. omg i am addicted to tobacco & alcohol, hell no, please no, say it isnt so. well.. actually, i dont really care. i enjoy drinking & smoking, lots of people die as a direct consequence of partaking in an activity which makes them happy ie. sky diving, mountain climbing, rough sex etc. I don't really see how drinking half a dozen beers after work and smoking a pack of marlboro is as bad as destroying all sense of reality as say meth or mushrooms will do. Ok sure, im not an alcoholic, and constant heavy drinking im sure does destroy families and that is never going to be a good thing, but in relative moderation, i see no problem. so on that note, i'm going to get myself a drink ;) cheers
Cheers
__________________
Holes in what's left of my reason
Holes in the knees of my blues
Odds against me been increasing
But I'll pull through
OFFLINE |   Reply With Quote


Reply

Rate This Thread
You have already rated this thread
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Quick Reply

Forum Jump

all posts © their respective authors. the tool page is not responsible for any of their thoughts, brilliant or otherwise.