[EyeBrock]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Derby thinks people should be able to sell drugs without punishment. Cool.

I think we should be able to buy nartcotics at government run stores. I just don't think whipping people for having a brew is ok.

[DerbyX]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Unreasonable pace?? C'mon Derby, countries like Afghanistan and Iran had well educated populations including women, and were quite progressive. All people were encouraged to be the best they could be. Islamic rule put those 2 countries 1000 years into the past.
Hell Iran wasn't even under muslim rule until the Shah died. That was what, 30 years ago?
I've met several women from Iran (Persians) that were very well spoken, confident and highly intelligent. They were even allowed to be, dare I say, doctors!!! Thank God islam came around to put them back in their place eh?

For Iran you might want to look at what was the factor that saw them move away from western modernism.

$1:

In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. After Operation Ajax, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's rule became increasingly autocratic. With American support, the Shah was able to rapidly modernize Iranian infrastructure, but he simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964 Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey, then to Iraq and finally to France. While in exile, he continued to denounce the Shah.

If the US had not interfered in Irans affairs then the Ayatollah might never have be able to seize power.

I'll also point out that Iraq was probably the least islamic fundie yet the US invaded them. A bit of topic you might think but if we are going to demonize their actions we might start to look at our own.

What about official US documents showing that CIA interrogators threatened to rape family members of terror suspects, execute their kids, even torture them with an electric drill?

How can we expect these countries to take our demands seriously of them acting more humane when our countries don't?

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Derby thinks people should be able to sell drugs without punishment. Cool.

Drugs are a personal choice no different then alcohol and could be treated just the same.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DerbyX DerbyX:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Derby thinks people should be able to sell drugs without punishment. Cool.

Drugs are a personal choice no different then alcohol and could be treated just the same.

While I have issues with serious narcotics being legalized, I gotta agree with you on this one.

As for Iran, I wasn't aware of some of that which you posted. However, it just shows the mentality of the abuse of religious power. The scenario, in Cliff Notes format is, the west pissed of the assholetolah, allowed the Shah to abuse HIS power by crushing all political opposition(which was wrong for sure), so Khomeini takes his revenge out on the people by crushing them with oppressive islamist fundamentalism.

So his peace loving religion taught him that he should do to an entire nation of HIS people, what was done to him by one man? Nothin wrong there

However, you have brought up a point I've been trying to make for years. So, in an offhand way, I'm kinda agreeing with you here, WITH the qualifier that, "If the US had not interfered in Iran's affairs then the Ayatollah might never have be able to seize power.(your words, my italics)
I say that because I've been saying for years that the US's worst enemy is it's own foreign policy. One just need to look at US history in the 20th century.

[ridenrain]

I'm quite sure that all those torture methods were approved by Queen Pelosi.

[OnTheIce]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Derby thinks people should be able to sell drugs without punishment. Cool.

I think we should be able to buy nartcotics at government run stores. I just don't think whipping people for having a brew is ok.

Haven't we learned from the whole alcohol and cigarettes debacle?

The costs these drugs have on our society is disgusting. Add in the heavy narcotics and you might as well bend over and take it "prison style"...cause if you thought your taxes were high now....wow

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Not really. First of all, the savings in police costs alone would be huge. Not to mention the significant reduction in monies organized crime rakes in from the drug trade.
2)Farmers that are being subsidized to grow useless, ie very low demand crops, could switch over to pot growing( another significant tax savings).
3)We've got over 50 pharma companies in Canada so the infrastructure would already be in place for the production of synthetic drugs. This would also help vastly reduce the number of people buying stuff with crap in it.
4)Tax the hell out of it but keep the prices below street prices. These taxes will increase the nations coffers. Again, the health care costs wouldn't be quite as high as they currently are because people wouldn't be buying drugs cut with all kinds of shit.

Regardless of what we've learned from the "alcohol and cigarettes debacle", we've also learned that if people wish to partake of certain substances, they will find a way regardless. Legalization would just make the whole process safer for everyone.
I mean, how many gang shootings do you hear of that were a result of fighting over territory to sell booze?

[OnTheIce]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Not really. First of all, the savings in police costs alone would be huge. Not to mention the significant reduction in monies organized crime rakes in from the drug trade.
2)Farmers that are being subsidized to grow useless, ie very low demand crops, could switch over to pot growing( another significant tax savings).
3)We've got over 50 pharma companies in Canada so the infrastructure would already be in place for the production of synthetic drugs. This would also help vastly reduce the number of people buying stuff with crap in it.
4)Tax the hell out of it but keep the prices below street prices. These taxes will increase the nations coffers. Again, the health care costs wouldn't be quite as high as they currently are because people wouldn't be buying drugs cut with all kinds of shit.

Regardless of what we've learned from the "alcohol and cigarettes debacle", we've also learned that if people wish to partake of certain substances, they will find a way regardless. Legalization would just make the whole process safer for everyone.
I mean, how many gang shootings do you hear of that were a result of fighting over territory to sell booze?

It'll never happen for various reasons but it's an interesting topic for debate.

[EyeBrock]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Derby thinks people should be able to sell drugs without punishment. Cool.

I think we should be able to buy nartcotics at government run stores. I just don't think whipping people for having a brew is ok.

Haven't we learned from the whole alcohol and cigarettes debacle?

The costs these drugs have on our society is disgusting. Add in the heavy narcotics and you might as well bend over and take it "prison style"...cause if you thought your taxes were high now....wow

I think prohibition of narcotics has been as successful as the prohibition of alcohol was in North America in the first part of the 20th century.

Both prohibitions created and fuelled an out of control criminal class and had zero impact on use.

While there is a market for narcotics, why not treat it like alcohol? Tax it and use the taxes to treat the losers who get addicted.
All we have now is drug barons and lawyers getting rich.

Legalised use would cut the price and rob the leeches of their profits.

[OnTheIce]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I think prohibition of narcotics has been as successful as the prohibition of alcohol was in North America in the first part of the 20th century.

Both prohibitions created and fuelled an out of control criminal class and had zero impact on use.

While there is a market for narcotics, why not treat it like alcohol? Tax it and use the taxes to treat the losers who get addicted.
All we have now is drug barons and lawyers getting rich.

Legalised use would cut the price and rob the leeches of their profits.

Any stats to back up that prohibition of narcotics has done nothing to curb use?

I find that hard to believe, mainly because you need a prescription to get most of these drugs and you can't get them from some guys garage like you could get the booze back in the day. It's not easy to get narcotics.

[Brenda]

Try Mexico. They legalized drugpossesion today. Including cocaine and heroin.

[OnTheIce]

Brenda Brenda:

Try Mexico. They legalized drugpossesion today. Including cocaine and heroin.

Considering Mexico is already a shit-hole, I'm not sure how this relates at all or how we can form an opinion after 1 days of these new era in Mexico.

[Brenda]

monitor it.

[DerbyX]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Any stats to back up that prohibition of narcotics has done nothing to curb use?

I find that hard to believe, mainly because you need a prescription to get most of these drugs and you can't get them from some guys garage like you could get the booze back in the day. It's not easy to get narcotics.

Those stats are hard to come by but what about drug use in countries that decriminalize it?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 46,00.html

$1:

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

Of course if you want to look at a more North American model then all you have to do is look at the drug problems/rates of Canada, the USA, and Mexico. The harsher the drug law enforcement response the worse the situation.

[EyeBrock]

I agree Derby. Enforcement has just made it worse.