|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The futility of Colombia’s two-decade air war on the cocaine trade was laid bare on Thursday when the government, following President Juan Manuel Santos’ recommendation, agreed to halt the aerial spraying of coca crops with the herbicide glyphosate — a pillar of Plan Colombia, the multibillion-dollar U.S. aid package to fight drug trafficking.
Drug war opponents and environmentalists have long panned the use of aerial spraying in Colombia. Ironically, though, it’s the U.S. government that recently shed light on the policy’s impotence. The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy announced last week that the cultivation of coca, the main ingredient in cocaine, had spiked 39 percent in 2014 over the previous year — despite the U.S.-funded aerial spraying program that has fumigated 4 million acres of crops at a cost of nearly $2 billion since it began in 1994.
Despite the dismal eradication numbers, however, two other factors have contributed more to Colombia’s about-face.
Earlier this month the Colombian health ministry recommended the suspension of the government’s aerial fumigation efforts after the World Health Organization in March warned that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” The WHO pointed to evidence that herbicide produces cancer in lab animals.
“I am going to ask the government officials in the National Drug Council at their next meeting to suspend glyphosate spraying of illicit cultivations (of coca),” President Santos said last week. “The recommendations and studies reviewed by the Ministry of Health show clearly that yes, this risk exists.”
Ongoing peace talks between the Colombian government and FARC rebels — a more than two-year-long effort to end the civil war that has afflicted the country for five decades — likely also played a role in Thursday’s announcement. Aerial spraying has been widely used in the country’s south where there are swaths of rural land and a stronghold for the rebel group, which the government accuses of financing itself with drug money. During talks last May, Santos and FARC leaders agreed on a plan to tackle the drug trade. The plan rests largely on FARC demands to halt aerial spraying as part of any final peace process.
By most accounts, aerial spraying in Colombia has been costly and ineffective. In recent years violent protests by Colombian farmers, who have complained of skin irritations and genetic abnormalities that they say are linked to glyphosate, have temporarily halted aerial spraying in certain regions. And Colombian researchers have found higher rates of miscarriages in places exposed to the spraying.
Source
|
On May 16 2015 08:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The futility of Colombia’s two-decade air war on the cocaine trade was laid bare on Thursday when the government, following President Juan Manuel Santos’ recommendation, agreed to halt the aerial spraying of coca crops with the herbicide glyphosate — a pillar of Plan Colombia, the multibillion-dollar U.S. aid package to fight drug trafficking.
Drug war opponents and environmentalists have long panned the use of aerial spraying in Colombia. Ironically, though, it’s the U.S. government that recently shed light on the policy’s impotence. The U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy announced last week that the cultivation of coca, the main ingredient in cocaine, had spiked 39 percent in 2014 over the previous year — despite the U.S.-funded aerial spraying program that has fumigated 4 million acres of crops at a cost of nearly $2 billion since it began in 1994.
Despite the dismal eradication numbers, however, two other factors have contributed more to Colombia’s about-face.
Earlier this month the Colombian health ministry recommended the suspension of the government’s aerial fumigation efforts after the World Health Organization in March warned that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” The WHO pointed to evidence that herbicide produces cancer in lab animals.
“I am going to ask the government officials in the National Drug Council at their next meeting to suspend glyphosate spraying of illicit cultivations (of coca),” President Santos said last week. “The recommendations and studies reviewed by the Ministry of Health show clearly that yes, this risk exists.”
Ongoing peace talks between the Colombian government and FARC rebels — a more than two-year-long effort to end the civil war that has afflicted the country for five decades — likely also played a role in Thursday’s announcement. Aerial spraying has been widely used in the country’s south where there are swaths of rural land and a stronghold for the rebel group, which the government accuses of financing itself with drug money. During talks last May, Santos and FARC leaders agreed on a plan to tackle the drug trade. The plan rests largely on FARC demands to halt aerial spraying as part of any final peace process.
By most accounts, aerial spraying in Colombia has been costly and ineffective. In recent years violent protests by Colombian farmers, who have complained of skin irritations and genetic abnormalities that they say are linked to glyphosate, have temporarily halted aerial spraying in certain regions. And Colombian researchers have found higher rates of miscarriages in places exposed to the spraying. Source
The war on drugs has been stupid at best and at worst really twisted and f'd up on a scale rarely matched in human history...It's strongest proponents should be ostracized from polite company, possibly permanently, at least until they can admit how stupid they were.
That means no rationalizing and crap, just admit they were moronic and should really just want to exclude themselves as not to warrant people coming after them for past wrongs.
|
On May 16 2015 06:50 ZasZ. wrote:
My main beef is that it seems the majority of people who are opposed to the death penalty are pro-choice. I don't see how you can reconcile those two positions honestly.
Are you serious?
|
On May 16 2015 09:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 06:50 ZasZ. wrote:
My main beef is that it seems the majority of people who are opposed to the death penalty are pro-choice. I don't see how you can reconcile those two positions honestly. Are you serious?
I don't see why these two positions are necessarily inconsistent or irreconcilable either. ZasZ can you please elaborate?
|
Depends on why you oppose the death penalty, but if you do so for humanist reasons you definitely should have some trouble with abortions. (if the abortion isn't necessary to safe the mothers life or something along these lines)
|
On May 16 2015 09:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 06:50 ZasZ. wrote:
My main beef is that it seems the majority of people who are opposed to the death penalty are pro-choice. I don't see how you can reconcile those two positions honestly. Are you serious?
He's misquoting the late great George Carlin.
|
On May 16 2015 09:24 Nyxisto wrote:
Depends on why you oppose the death penalty, but if you do so for humanist reasons you definitely should have some trouble with abortions. (if the abortion isn't necessary to safe the mothers life or something along these lines)
Uhh no. It depends entirely on at what point you give a fetus the same rights as a fully grown human being. If you do so at time of ability to react to outside physical stimuli that is around week 25 and even the most ardent pro-choice will agree that abortions at that stage are no longer a good idea.
|
On May 16 2015 09:31 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 09:24 Nyxisto wrote:
Depends on why you oppose the death penalty, but if you do so for humanist reasons you definitely should have some trouble with abortions. (if the abortion isn't necessary to safe the mothers life or something along these lines) Uhh no. It depends entirely on at what point you give a fetus the same rights as a fully grown human being. If you do so at time of ability to react to outside physical stimuli that is around age 25 and even the most ardent pro-choice will agree that abortions at that stage are no longer a good idea.
Well we don't give them the same rights as a fully grown human being until 21 really?
|
No... stop
this is actually simple.
After about XX weeks a fetus is able to live (with some outside help) before that = no human being. Why you ask? Because totally incomplete and not able to live.
.
It is simple. As long as you don't put emotions in it it is really fucking simple.
And btw: in most western countries it is 18... in others even lower.
|
It's actually not that simple. 100 years ago no unborn child would survive, today children can be kept alive after 24 weeks already if I'm not mistaken. Is the value of human life now dependent on the current technological progress? Doesn't sound very intuitive to me and it definitely isn't "simple".
|
On May 16 2015 09:40 Velr wrote:
No... stop
this is actually simple.
After about XX weeks a fetus is able to live (with some outside help) before that = no human being. Why you ask? Because totally incomplete and not able to live.
.
It is simple. As long as you don't put emotions in it it is really fucking simple.
And btw: in most western countries it is 18... in others even lower.
I just say 21 because of purchasing alcohol, 18's fine too. Point being the idea that kids get all the rights adults do is just silly, as voting/entering contracts is a basic right that we comfortably deny children up to 18. (you can get emancipated past the contracts but not voting[at least in the US])
|
On May 16 2015 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 09:31 Ghostcom wrote:On May 16 2015 09:24 Nyxisto wrote:
Depends on why you oppose the death penalty, but if you do so for humanist reasons you definitely should have some trouble with abortions. (if the abortion isn't necessary to safe the mothers life or something along these lines) Uhh no. It depends entirely on at what point you give a fetus the same rights as a fully grown human being. If you do so at time of ability to react to outside physical stimuli that is around age 25 and even the most ardent pro-choice will agree that abortions at that stage are no longer a good idea. Well we don't give them the same rights as a fully grown human being until 21 really?
Full grown as in "at time of birth", not as in time of adulthood.
EDIT: And y'all will notice that my statement is not about viability but about development of a functional (not final) nervous system in an organism which will develop to a human being.
|
On May 16 2015 09:24 Nyxisto wrote:
Depends on why you oppose the death penalty, but if you do so for humanist reasons you definitely should have some trouble with abortions. (if the abortion isn't necessary to safe the mothers life or something along these lines)
Well it may also pertain to how early the abortion is (e.g., a fertilized egg/ blastocyst is most definitely not a human), but rape and complications in the pregnancy are also variables that one needs to consider. A pro-choice position allows for conversation and discussion over nuances, whereas a pro-life position is really an anti-choice philosophy.
As far as the death penalty goes, I've heard it's largely inaccurate and incredibly expensive, not to mention the fact that we've executed innocent people before. The two topics are apples and oranges to me.
|
My point is mainly that the pro-Choice people don't hold a genuine moral conviction, they oppose the pro-life crowd because they are right-wingers and so they naturally have to take the opposite position of whatever it is they think. You can't seriously believe that eating a steak is immoral and that wearing sneakers made by some poor kid in China is a crime against humanity but then abort an unborn child because it isn't convenient for you. That is especially troubling because the hugely complex abortion discussion is often shut down on the assumption that the pro-choice faction is lead by reason while everybody else is just a crazy religious person or something.
|
On May 16 2015 09:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2015 09:40 Velr wrote:
No... stop
this is actually simple.
After about XX weeks a fetus is able to live (with some outside help) before that = no human being. Why you ask? Because totally incomplete and not able to live.
.
It is simple. As long as you don't put emotions in it it is really fucking simple.
And btw: in most western countries it is 18... in others even lower. I just say 21 because of purchasing alcohol, 18's fine too. Point being the idea that kids get all the rights adults do is just silly, as voting/entering contracts is a basic right that we comfortably deny children up to 18. (you can get emancipated past the contracts but not voting[at least in the US])
No, what's silly is discussing the morality of life and death based on "legal rights."
|
On May 16 2015 10:09 Nyxisto wrote:
My point is mainly that the pro-Choice people don't hold a genuine moral conviction, they oppose the pro-life crowd because they are right-wingers and so they naturally have to take the opposite position of whatever it is they think. You can't seriously believe that eating a steak is immoral and that wearing sneakers made by some poor kid in China is a crime against humanity but then abort an unborn child because it isn't convenient for you. That is especially troubling because the hugely complex abortion discussion is often shut down on the assumption that the pro-choice faction is lead by reason why everybody else is just a crazy religious person or something.
What a childish characterization of how someone goes about deciding to abort a "child."
This might be shocking to anyone who hasn't owned a dog and also has their head up their ass, but you can still be opposed to animal cruelty, think it's immoral to abuse a dog, and yet euthanize it at a certain point to end its suffering.
|
On May 16 2015 10:09 Nyxisto wrote:
My point is mainly that the pro-Choice people don't hold a genuine moral conviction, they oppose the pro-life crowd because they are right-wingers and so they naturally have to take the opposite position of whatever it is they think. You can't seriously believe that eating a steak is immoral and that wearing sneakers made by some poor kid in China is a crime against humanity but then abort an unborn child because it isn't convenient for you. That is especially troubling because the hugely complex abortion discussion is often shut down on the assumption that the pro-choice faction is lead by reason why everybody else is just a crazy religious person or something.
Well if that's your "point", then I'm deeply disturbed with how ever you developed such a perspective.
Women's rights, rape, pregnancy, and morality shouldn't be partizan problems, and it's not the left-wingers who make these into political issues. They have to defend moral choices when social conservatives shut down discussion or assistance or anything else that could benefit people in unideal circumstances (unless you're a white male who needs Viagra, of course).
Furthermore, as I already stated, it's the pro-life (anti-choice) camp who's all for shutting down any nuanced discussion because they don't care about context in any of these situations- they already have their answer. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion or pro-death; it means being open to talk about context and nuance before making a decision. Maybe that's why the pro-choice faction is led by reason... It's not an asumption; it's a conclusion.
|
On May 16 2015 10:09 Nyxisto wrote:
My point is mainly that the pro-Choice people don't hold a genuine moral conviction, they oppose the pro-life crowd because they are right-wingers and so they naturally have to take the opposite position of whatever it is they think. You can't seriously believe that eating a steak is immoral and that wearing sneakers made by some poor kid in China is a crime against humanity but then abort an unborn child because it isn't convenient for you. That is especially troubling because the hugely complex abortion discussion is often shut down on the assumption that the pro-choice faction is lead by reason why everybody else is just a crazy religious person or something.
There's a lot more to pro choice than abortions for convenience. I don't think there are many women (who have had one) who would say there is anything convenient about an abortion. It's something that sticks with many women for the rest of their life. Particularly when there are people hollering how any and all abortion is murder or IUD's or Plan B are murder/abortion.
My opposition to the hardcore pro-life crowd comes from men telling women they have to carry the baby of their rapist or family member or that it's something they think they should even be deciding with little to no input from women.
When it gets reasonable talking about late term abortions with no medical reasoning I think there is plenty of common ground.
The right just has this thing about not being able to let it be between a physician and the woman. If the right really wanted to win the abortion fight they should of been focusing on changing the minds of doctors. Problem is too many doctors don't buy their arguments.
|
Last i checked abortion due to rape or incest is a small amount (<1%) of all abortions. The only reason it's really brought up by pro-choice people is because it's a way to define and demonize your opponent more easily. If one was searching for "common ground" then rape/incest wouldn't come up that often.
|
On May 16 2015 11:08 Introvert wrote:
Last i checked abortion due to rape or incest is a small amount (<1%) of all abortions. The only reason it's really brought up by pro-choice people is because it's a way to define and demonize your opponent more easily. If one was searching for "common ground" then rape/incest wouldn't come up that often.
Why does it matter how small the percentage is? Those are completely legitimate reasons to be pro-choice. I'm not a fan of abortions, but I'm not willing to make a sweeping generalization like "No abortions, ever."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
