|
On January 06 2010 13:06 monolith94 wrote:
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use.
Absolutely, this can be seen here. As the drug became illegal and Britian became the dealer things exponentiated out of control.
Low Chinese demand for European goods, and high European demand for Chinese goods, including tea, silk, and porcelain, forced European merchants to purchase these goods with silver, the only commodity the Chinese would accept. From the mid-17th century around 28 million kilograms of silver was received by China, principally from European powers, in exchange for Chinese goods.[3] This was not a viable long term trading dynamic. Britain's problem was further complicated by the fact that it had been using the gold standard from the mid 18th Century and therefore had to purchase silver from other European countries, incurring an additional transaction cost.[4] In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured by the addiction of thousands of Chinese, and the flow of silver was reversed. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
I also read an article that clearly shows it became illegal before it became a problem simply because the Emperor disliked people using it many years before the opium wars.
|
On January 06 2010 12:57 KissBlade wrote:
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out.
Well, it's kind of 50-50. The ennui of half the nobles was due to their opium addiction lol. But yeah, the Empress Dowager was pretty instrumental in fubaring the dynasty. The emperor and his colleagues were actually for reform, until she had them locked up in the Forbidden Palace... GG Qing Dynasty. Kind of a shame too as the Qing had just gotten a lock on the exterior of China for the first time in who knows how long.
|
On January 06 2010 12:57 KissBlade wrote:
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out.
A quarter of adult Chinese males were addicted to opium at the height of the addiction epidemic - we're talking about tens of millions of people; it wasn't just devastating for many individualized families, it was a national problem. As for decadent rulers - countless societies throughout history have had ruling classes who drain the treasury on luxuries (Versailles wasn't built on any sort of reasonable budget) without driving the country into the ground, so not all the blame can be placed there either. (And not that the Empress was any good as a ruler, but she wouldn't have had to rebuild the Summer Palace if it hadn't been burned down during the Opium Wars.)
On January 06 2010 13:12 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 13:06 monolith94 wrote:
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use. Absolutely, this can be seen here. As the drug became illegal and Britian became the dealer things exponentiated out of control. Show nested quote +Low Chinese demand for European goods, and high European demand for Chinese goods, including tea, silk, and porcelain, forced European merchants to purchase these goods with silver, the only commodity the Chinese would accept. From the mid-17th century around 28 million kilograms of silver was received by China, principally from European powers, in exchange for Chinese goods.[3] This was not a viable long term trading dynamic. Britain's problem was further complicated by the fact that it had been using the gold standard from the mid 18th Century and therefore had to purchase silver from other European countries, incurring an additional transaction cost.[4] In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured by the addiction of thousands of Chinese, and the flow of silver was reversed. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars I also read an article that clearly shows it became illegal before it became a problem simply because the Emperor disliked people using it many years before the opium wars.
Yes, because he saw it coming and tried to prevent it. Are you saying if only China had chosen not to resist the expansion of the opium trade, there would have been less of an opium problem? Because that's absurd. The Opium Wars only started after the problem had ballooned to a ridiculously large size.
|
|
|
On January 06 2010 13:14 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 12:57 KissBlade wrote:
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out. A quarter of adult Chinese males were addicted to opium at the height of the addiction epidemic - we're talking about tens of millions of people; it wasn't just devastating for many individualized families, it was a national problem. As for decadent rulers - countless societies throughout history have had ruling classes who drain the treasury on luxuries (Versailles wasn't built on any sort of reasonable budget) without driving the country into the ground, so not all the blame can be placed there either. (And not that the Empress was any good as a ruler, but she wouldn't have had to rebuild the Summer Palace if it hadn't been burned down during the Opium Wars.) Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 13:12 7Strife wrote:On January 06 2010 13:06 monolith94 wrote:
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use. Absolutely, this can be seen here. As the drug became illegal and Britian became the dealer things exponentiated out of control. Low Chinese demand for European goods, and high European demand for Chinese goods, including tea, silk, and porcelain, forced European merchants to purchase these goods with silver, the only commodity the Chinese would accept. From the mid-17th century around 28 million kilograms of silver was received by China, principally from European powers, in exchange for Chinese goods.[3] This was not a viable long term trading dynamic. Britain's problem was further complicated by the fact that it had been using the gold standard from the mid 18th Century and therefore had to purchase silver from other European countries, incurring an additional transaction cost.[4] In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured by the addiction of thousands of Chinese, and the flow of silver was reversed. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_WarsI also read an article that clearly shows it became illegal before it became a problem simply because the Emperor disliked people using it many years before the opium wars. Yes, because he saw it coming and tried to prevent it. Are you saying if only China had chosen not to resist the expansion of the opium trade, there would have been less of an opium problem? Because that's absurd. The Opium Wars only started after the problem had ballooned to a ridiculously large size.
No actually...
Opium prohibition began in 1729, when Emperor Yongzheng of the Qing Dynasty, disturbed by madak smoking at court and carrying out the government's role of upholding Confucian virtue, officially prohibited the sale of opium, except for a small amount for medicinal purposes. The ban punished sellers and opium den keepers, but not users of the drug.[13] Opium was banned completely in 1799 and this prohibition continued until 1860.[42] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium
|
On January 06 2010 13:20 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 13:14 EmeraldSparks wrote:On January 06 2010 12:57 KissBlade wrote:
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out. A quarter of adult Chinese males were addicted to opium at the height of the addiction epidemic - we're talking about tens of millions of people; it wasn't just devastating for many individualized families, it was a national problem. As for decadent rulers - countless societies throughout history have had ruling classes who drain the treasury on luxuries (Versailles wasn't built on any sort of reasonable budget) without driving the country into the ground, so not all the blame can be placed there either. (And not that the Empress was any good as a ruler, but she wouldn't have had to rebuild the Summer Palace if it hadn't been burned down during the Opium Wars.) On January 06 2010 13:12 7Strife wrote:On January 06 2010 13:06 monolith94 wrote:
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use. Absolutely, this can be seen here. As the drug became illegal and Britian became the dealer things exponentiated out of control. Low Chinese demand for European goods, and high European demand for Chinese goods, including tea, silk, and porcelain, forced European merchants to purchase these goods with silver, the only commodity the Chinese would accept. From the mid-17th century around 28 million kilograms of silver was received by China, principally from European powers, in exchange for Chinese goods.[3] This was not a viable long term trading dynamic. Britain's problem was further complicated by the fact that it had been using the gold standard from the mid 18th Century and therefore had to purchase silver from other European countries, incurring an additional transaction cost.[4] In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured by the addiction of thousands of Chinese, and the flow of silver was reversed. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_WarsI also read an article that clearly shows it became illegal before it became a problem simply because the Emperor disliked people using it many years before the opium wars. Yes, because he saw it coming and tried to prevent it. Are you saying if only China had chosen not to resist the expansion of the opium trade, there would have been less of an opium problem? Because that's absurd. The Opium Wars only started after the problem had ballooned to a ridiculously large size. No actually... Show nested quote +Opium prohibition began in 1729, when Emperor Yongzheng of the Qing Dynasty, disturbed by madak smoking at court and carrying out the government's role of upholding Confucian virtue, officially prohibited the sale of opium, except for a small amount for medicinal purposes. The ban punished sellers and opium den keepers, but not users of the drug.[13] Opium was banned completely in 1799 and this prohibition continued until 1860.[42] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium
Yes, but
On January 06 2010 13:14 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 12:57 KissBlade wrote:
I don't see what those posts have anything to do with China or even talking to Chinese nationals. To be honest, opium didn't actually destroy the country. Yes it was very devastating for many many families but what actually destroyed China was the ineffective ennui of MANY of it's rulers who grew fat and inattentive to a country's needs. When the reigning Empress decides to spend every silver on building a "Summer Palace" instead of modernizing infrastructure so a country wouldn't sink from a first world power to a third world nation, you CANNOT say foreigners (meaning Europeans instead of the Mongol/Manchu rulers) were at fault for the collapse of China during the Opium War. Granted many foreign powers DID take advantage of China's inherent weakness but that's how the world works. But as I said, stop responding to blatant trolling, they will tire themselves out. A quarter of adult Chinese males were addicted to opium at the height of the addiction epidemic - we're talking about tens of millions of people; it wasn't just devastating for many individualized families, it was a national problem. As for decadent rulers - countless societies throughout history have had ruling classes who drain the treasury on luxuries (Versailles wasn't built on any sort of reasonable budget) without driving the country into the ground, so not all the blame can be placed there either. (And not that the Empress was any good as a ruler, but she wouldn't have had to rebuild the Summer Palace if it hadn't been burned down during the Opium Wars.) Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 13:12 7Strife wrote:On January 06 2010 13:06 monolith94 wrote:
Britain was essentially playing the role of a drug-dealer in the Opium war. They had no serious competition in the opium trade; if they had, you can be sure that they would have exterminated them with the same brute force that a modern-day Mexican or Columbian cartel would use. Absolutely, this can be seen here. As the drug became illegal and Britian became the dealer things exponentiated out of control. Low Chinese demand for European goods, and high European demand for Chinese goods, including tea, silk, and porcelain, forced European merchants to purchase these goods with silver, the only commodity the Chinese would accept. From the mid-17th century around 28 million kilograms of silver was received by China, principally from European powers, in exchange for Chinese goods.[3] This was not a viable long term trading dynamic. Britain's problem was further complicated by the fact that it had been using the gold standard from the mid 18th Century and therefore had to purchase silver from other European countries, incurring an additional transaction cost.[4] In the 18th century, despite ardent protest from the Qing government, British traders began importing opium from India. Because of its strong mass appeal and addictive nature, opium was an effective solution to the trade problem. An instant consumer market for the drug was secured by the addiction of thousands of Chinese, and the flow of silver was reversed. Recognizing the growing number of addicts, the Yongzheng Emperor prohibited the sale and smoking of opium in 1729, and only allowed a small amount of opium imports for medicinal purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_WarsI also read an article that clearly shows it became illegal before it became a problem simply because the Emperor disliked people using it many years before the opium wars. Yes, because he saw it coming and tried to prevent it. Are you saying if only China had chosen not to resist the expansion of the opium trade, there would have been less of an opium problem? Because that's absurd. The Opium Wars only started after the problem had ballooned to a ridiculously large size.
|
I think it's awesome 7Strife is now claiming that banning a drug increases its usage.
Legalizing alcohol and tobacco might have gotten rid of the traffickers, but it sure didn't help the population at all. It's only recently with extremely strong drives to educate people on the dangers of smoking that you see a decrease in smokers. Also, people have had to rise up and put a stop to smoking in public with LAWS, that's the only thing that got cigarettes out of the restaurants and bars. I can tell you it was a disgusting thing to try to eat food in a restaurant full of smoke. I, for one, am damned glad smoking is now banned in restaurants.
I won't even begin to describe all the social ills and losses we suffer due to alcohol consumption and abuse. It's so obvious that it does not need description.
|
On January 06 2010 13:31 StorkHwaiting wrote:
I think it's awesome 7Strife is now claiming that banning a drug increases its usage.
Legalizing alcohol and tobacco might have gotten rid of the traffickers, but it sure didn't help the population at all. It's only recently with extremely strong drives to educate people on the dangers of smoking that you see a decrease in smokers. Also, people have had to rise up and put a stop to smoking in public with LAWS, that's the only thing that got cigarettes out of the restaurants and bars. I can tell you it was a disgusting thing to try to eat food in a restaurant full of smoke. I, for one, am damned glad smoking is now banned in restaurants.
I won't even begin to describe all the social ills and losses we suffer due to alcohol consumption and abuse. It's so obvious that it does not need description.
I have expressed in my post that educating people of the dangers of addiction to substances is the A+++ way to beat drug use (and addiction occasionally.) imo It is still a persons choice if they want to do a drug; their body is their property just as I believe suicide should be an inalienable right. The textbook natural or inalienable right is the right to life; thus it would serve you have a right to death; not contingent upon legal rights (or laws.)
|
7Strife,
you are assuming that the individuals that choose death are fully capable of making such choices. which is not always true. for the same reason that having sex with a drunk women is rape even if she said "yes".
|
this thing still going? rofl
|
On January 06 2010 14:02 dybydx wrote:
7Strife,
you are assuming that the individuals that choose death are fully capable of making such choices. which is not always true. for the same reason that having sex with a drunk women is rape even if she said "yes".
Yes, I know. There should be a stipulation; you cannot be under the influence of any drug. Perhaps, you need to wait (3) or so weeks (appointment should take that long.) Depression? Sounds like a pretty damn good reason for suicide imo. However, those in the mental health / pharma industry would certainly have sales decrease much if that were the case. (We all know they wouldn't like that!) Some folks live 40-50 years, that's enough, they experienced everything they wish to (within reason), now they realize they are just doing the same thing over and over, eat, drink, piss, watch TV, watch movie, eat, shit, sleep, on and on. So you had enough now ~ you seen it all (in a certain kind of way) and feel as a hamster on a wheel (and we are; just a larger scale) and wanna see the exit. I say, no problem, and have an epic journey. Tech will send you to our next destination (we all do very soon) painlessly.
|
On January 06 2010 12:25 7Strife wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2010 12:09 KissBlade wrote:
Stork, you are responding to someone who is claiming that crime in the US are caused by underground drug trade and were free trade of drugs allowed, this would not happen. I have no idea why in the world you would even bother.
Edit: And the genius below me is presenting his brilliant thesis on why drug dealers should all be set free in society as messiahs of a natioon. If drugs were legal "drug dealers" would not exist; you wouldn't buy them on the corner of the block. All the criminals who prosper now from the trade would no longer be prospering from the trade. Do you see drug dealers selling packets of cigarettes or liquor on the corner? edit: Now I won't continue with you until you first admit you are wrong when you said that "drug dealers" would be set loose upon the society as messiahs. You have to admit, if drugs were not outlawed, then street "drug dealers" would not exist; Then, we can discuss further in a humiliating experience for you. I will hold you accountable for the ignorant foolish things you say.
Just wanted to point out how ridiculous you are.
It's ironic as well that you'd call somebody a troll when you're posting in a topic regarding China when you have absolutely no idea what the country is like. Calling TL posters totalitarian just shows how little close-minded you really are. I don't even like the Chinese government, but like baubo said, you're way off the mark in your criticisms. You're stuck in a McCarthian mentality where they're different, therefore they're wrong.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need laws and people would be responsible as well as educated regarding drugs. At the moment though, people in China are largely uneducated about drug abuse, which is fine because there aren't that many drugs going around. A free drug market might work in the US, where you have programs in high school and the such, but for now such a system would be terrible for China. Educating the population on drug use would be nice, but they're still working on improving education in rural areas, as well as a myriad of other issues that should take precedence when drug abuse isn't a big problem.
Another thing, do you know how many countries have heroin as a legal substance? Do you know why? Hint: It's not because you're smarter than the rest of the world. I actually think a free drug market might work given the right circumstances, but I don't see how it works as an argument for why a drug smuggler should not have been killed.
|
On January 06 2010 14:02 dybydx wrote:
..... for the same reason that having sex with a drunk women is rape even if she said "yes".
uhm, lol?
|
On December 31 2009 12:39 StorkHwaiting wrote:
While he has a strong claim for mental insanity due to his retarded logic for going to China (or so he claims), what's to stop a guy like him from bringing in 4 kilos of explosives and detonating it on a plane? This is a matter of national security. Insanity is a pretty good defense for things like accidentally crashing a car, trying to suicide, maybe killing a spouse in a fit of manic rage. Carting heroine around to foreign countries just doesn't apply in my opinion.
You can't give people carte blanche to bring whatever they feel like into your country and then allow them to claim they did it because they're nuts. Yeah, he could have been there to become a pop star. He also could have been there because someone said "you do this drug deal for me and I know people in the entertainment biz who will make you a pop star."
It's pretty difficult to confuse 4 KILOS of heroine with anything else. What'd they tell him? Becoming a pop star involves baking a really big fucking cake? Perhaps the celebrity life involves a lot of wardrobe changes so he needed giant blocks of detergent?
If someone's crazy, you keep them in a facility or at home where you can watch him. I don't get why his family is crying about it now. They should have kept their crazy brother in the living room, tied to the sofa watching afternoon soaps. I'm sorry but carrying 4 kilos of heroine into China is a death sentence, much like carrying a boombox into the bathtub. The first way just takes a little bit longer.
I agree, although the penalty seems a little too harsh..
|
On January 06 2010 14:02 dybydx wrote:
for the same reason that having sex with a drunk women is rape even if she said "yes".
haha, I came here just to see what you are still arguing about but this made me laugh in real.
So does it mean I lost my virginity with mutual rape? 
|
On January 06 2010 13:31 StorkHwaiting wrote:
I think it's awesome 7Strife is now claiming that banning a drug increases its usage.
Legalizing alcohol and tobacco might have gotten rid of the traffickers, but it sure didn't help the population at all. It's only recently with extremely strong drives to educate people on the dangers of smoking that you see a decrease in smokers. Also, people have had to rise up and put a stop to smoking in public with LAWS, that's the only thing that got cigarettes out of the restaurants and bars. I can tell you it was a disgusting thing to try to eat food in a restaurant full of smoke. I, for one, am damned glad smoking is now banned in restaurants.
I won't even begin to describe all the social ills and losses we suffer due to alcohol consumption and abuse. It's so obvious that it does not need description.
"didn't help the population at all" is such an ambiguous term. First of all, tobacco has ALWAYS been legal. Probably always will be. Drinking did not profoundly decrease (although of course it did decrease to some extent) during prohibition; rather crime profoundly increased. You continue to focus, mindlessly, on the damage caused by the drugs themselves while continuously ignoring the damage caused by crime which is exacerbated by the average citizen being unable to compete on a free market with criminals and stupid drug laws. Also, I'm pretty sure that all of the citizens in prison for possession of MJ haven't been "helped" by drug laws. Legalization of alcohol most certainly helped the population: it helped them to enjoy a cocktail with their dinner, it helped them to have wine with their communion, it helped them to embrace the goodlife by starting their own micro-breweries, and on and on and on. Prohibition is a brutal sledgehammer-like policy that promotes governmental authority while clamping down on individual liberty: a sledgehammer policy when a scalpel is preferable.
|
On January 04 2010 03:18 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 20:42 MamiyaOtaru wrote:On January 03 2010 13:38 StorkHwaiting wrote:
It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech. The First Amendment was around a long time before those six decades of rampant consumerism. Your assertion is somewhat flawed *edit* linkified in case someone doesn't know what I am talking about. Trying not to assume everyone knows everything about the US constitution ROFL, Oh you mean that first amendment they had while owning slaves? Nice one, dude. That's also the first amendment where women still couldn't vote and only white male landowners had any say in anything. I can google 20 different laws within a heartbeat that show certain forms of speech are curtailed or outright banned by the US government.
Yeah obviously there are certain forms of banned speech, and people who have historically been enslaved. But when you say we are complacent and that is why we can have free speech, you imply that said "free speech" (with constraints) wasn't there before, which is dumb. A lot of the restrictions on free speech have been emplaced and codified more recently (like the Miller test for obsecenity circa 1973). If anything our speech is becoming less free as we become more complacent.
But let's look at what I was responding to: "It takes at least a century of deep brainwashing through the public education system and then six decades of rampant consumerism for the citizenry to be complacent and stupid enough to have the liberty of free speech".
Obviously you think (and I would not disagree) that "the liberty of free speech" is not unlimited. No one said that. But the "liberty of free speech" we have, whatever it means, is not new. The First Amendment has always been there
It doesn't mean I can say anything and everything (sedition is considered bad) and I never said it did. Way to strawman. My point was that our concept of free speech (whatever nitpicks you care to dig out) has been around a lot longer than the "six decades of rampant consumerism" you were talking about, unless you were referring to 1720s-1780s. That was a dumb post and you can't erase it by flailing around and pointing out our foibles and fuckups.
Let's spell it out: consumerism and complacency are not necessary for "the liberty of free speech" (whatever you meant by it). We had it (alongside bad stuff OMG) well before we were fat and content. Your assertion is risible.
And you're a raging hypocrite for moaning about suffrage for women. It's not like it was granted earlier elsewhere. In fact, the state where I live granted full suffrage (right to vote and hold office) in 1869. The list of places that did so sooner is vanishingly small.
|
I don't think slavery is a strawman. When a percentage of your population doesn't have rights, then you can't start the clock on free speech that far back.
I can bring up numerous cases of peaceful demonstrations in the USA that were fired upon by government troops from the 17th century to the 20th century. I'm sorry if this angers your patriotic vision of America, but this is not a country that had free speech for a very long time.
There is a reason the civil rights movement happened. I think it's repugnant for you to pretend like shit was peachy keen since the 1700's when America had quite appallingly bad enforcement of rights for its citizens until well into the late 20th century. As much as you'd like to cry about what's on a piece of paper, that doesn't make it reality.
You can call me names and use invective and get real mad. It kind of gives me a boner. But it won't change my mind. What will change my mind is if you can somehow portray American history as being an environment where the government enforced the civil rights of its citizens before the 1940's equally and systemically. A task that I don't think anyone can manage because it'd require a serious warping of the truth.
|
I really don't think people should compare keeping hard drugs outlawed and the prohibition. While the argument that banning the drug only increases crime and doesn't decrease usage, it's not right to put alcohol next to cocaine and heroin. One does not because helplessly addicted to alcohol after a few nights of partying. Someone who drinks a couple shots of whisky or vodka every night can still work very productively in the day. You cannot say the same thing about cocaine and heroin. Prohibition did not decrease alcohol usage sure, but that doesn't mean legalizing cocaine or heroin won't increase its usage. Alcohol have been a common drink among households around the world for millenia before the sudden ban, while hard drugs are thankfully only used by a minority of the world's population, and are a "relatively young" form of entertainment compared to other drugs like alcohol or tobacco. You cannot be certain of the effects of legalizing hard drugs simply because of the effects of the prohibition of a completely different type of drug with a completely different history.
You could say that the best way to keep people away from drugs is to educate them. That is absolutely true, but until every citizen of the world is well educated and knows the full consequences of using heroin and its well documented hazards, I won't legalize the drug and count on folk wisdom to prevent it from being used by kids.
|
What a demonstration of ignorance. For one thing, people have become addicted to alcohol very rapidly: witness the wrack and ruin that the American Indians were led to by alcohol. And while there are instances of people becoming addicted to heroin/cocaine as you say, there are certainly instances of people who sample such drugs and do not choose to engage them further. Furthermore, it is very much possible to injest coca and opium byproducts and have a functional, working life. More difficult, certainly, but alcohol can interfere with work just as much if not more so. Do we ban alcohol because of the few people who sneak a flask into the office?
Drugs are also less "young" than you seem to think. Also, you're correct: it is inappropriate to compare the prohibition of alcohol with our current drug war. Our current drug war is much, much worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
