Thread: 9/11 and Afghan War Proves Governments Run by Drugs Sleaze.

Can it be a coincidence that 9/11 and the Allied invasion of Afghanistan happened immediately after the successful ban on opium production by the Taliban in 2000-2001?

After having previously produced 70% of the world’s supply, opium production in Afghanistan fell to practically nothing as a result of the ban causing heroin prices to rapidly escalate across the globe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/wo...aides-say.html

As soon as the Allies began bombing in Afghanistan the farmers pulled up their conventional crops to plant the more lucrative opium instead. Now the country is producing even more opium than it has ever done in the past, some 93% of the world’s supply.

The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is just overwhelming and anyone attempting to deny this evidence on the basis that it’s just a conspiracy theory is in need of a serious health check. The expert opinion of physicists, engineers and demolition specialists as well as the eye witness testimony of the emergency services at the scene on the day, has created a body of evidence that is impossible for any reasonable person to deny.

The London Bombings were equally arranged by this gangster inspired government sleaze. The only photo we have been shown of the four bombers together was shown to be a fake as was reported in the Guardian and the train they were said to have caught from Luton never actually ran at the time stated. Are these just insignificant details? Certainly not.



[If you look closely at the above image and the alleged bomber at the rear in the white cap, you can clearly see that one of the iron railings he is stood in front of overlaps his left side.]

It is on historical and legal record that government officials can be completely and utterly corrupt when they want to be. New York is a good case example where mayors, magistrates and the police have been brought to book for corrupt and illegal practices. Thailand is another good example where the top gangster running the drugs smuggling, brothels and extortion rackets was found to be the chief of police!

If you also have a problem with such corrupt and sleazy practices from your government then please speak your mind here...........

I disagree with you about the picture, all those in it have their hands in their pockets, as does Mr whitecap, look behnd the railings and you see a vertical feature, this is what you think is his outline, but it is not! his hand/wrist does not extend below the bar.

All governments are corrupt and sleazy, what's the phrase about absolute power corrupts absolutely?

As for whether 9/11 was a conspiracy I seem to remember some president could not keep a blowjob secret, so what chance would such a large scale event have?
all to often it's authors with a living to make who present these conspiracies and their are too many dumb assed people out there (thank god) who buy this crap.

I agree with you galexander.

One of the many problems is that the media is propaganda and most people probably dont realize this and are unlikely to read documents in the national archives of the US such as the Operation Northwoods document that shows examples of false flag covert operations that are designed to fool everyone including most people in the government the military and the media (and obviously the clueless public that doesnt realize the media spoon feeds them propaganda) and many have never heard of the USS Liberty, think the Golf of Tonkin incident was true because the military and media said so.

Telling the people that dont understand how a false flag works, that dont know about the War Racket, about the lies, half-truth and propaganda the media feeds the public before during and after wars, that 911 is an inside job is like trying to explain a microprocessor to a neanderthal that has no concept of electricity let alone electronics, it does not penetrate their skull, they say things like how can it be secret when a blowjob is not and so on.

Communication requires common references otherwise two people dont understand what the other is saying. Unfortunately most people dont have the time to do the research so its understandable they brush off information that doesnt fit the BS MSM world view.

We have to fight corruption and media propagnada. We have to show examples of lies from the past. Explain to recognize "the dog that didnt bark" to show that even something reported that is somewhat true can be completely misleading and bias, because media focus on this and not on that is itself bias and sometimes very revealling IF you recognize it.

Originally Posted by Home200

I disagree with you about the picture, all those in it have their hands in their pockets, as does Mr whitecap, look behnd the railings and you see a vertical feature, this is what you think is his outline, but it is not! his hand/wrist does not extend below the bar.

All governments are corrupt and sleazy, what's the phrase about absolute power corrupts absolutely?

As for whether 9/11 was a conspiracy I seem to remember some president could not keep a blowjob secret, so what chance would such a large scale event have?
all to often it's authors with a living to make who present these conspiracies and their are too many dumb assed people out there (thank god) who buy this crap.

If you make a comparison with the figure stood to his left, exactly where his hand should be disappearing into his pocket is where the railing is. So where has his hand and the end of his arm gone?

Further why are we not shown additional images of the bombers together on the Underground just to dispel any doubts? We haven't been shown any. Why are they keeping them a secret?

Originally Posted by Home200

I disagree with you about the picture, all those in it have their hands in their pockets, as does Mr whitecap, look behnd the railings and you see a vertical feature, this is what you think is his outline, but it is not! his hand/wrist does not extend below the bar.

All governments are corrupt and sleazy, what's the phrase about absolute power corrupts absolutely?

As for whether 9/11 was a conspiracy I seem to remember some president could not keep a blowjob secret, so what chance would such a large scale event have?
all to often it's authors with a living to make who present these conspiracies and their are too many dumb assed people out there (thank god) who buy this crap.

And how do you explain the bizarre coincidence involving a mock security exercise being held on the same morning at the same time and where bombs went off at the exact same stations?

Peter Powers the managing director of the firm coordinating the exercise gave the following interview to BBC radio:

Power: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

Peter Allen: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

Power: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, "this is the real one" and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

Originally Posted by galexander

Can it be a coincidence that 9/11 and the Allied invasion of Afghanistan happened immediately after the successful ban on opium production by the Taliban in 2000-2001?

And you've presented not one iota of anything that shows any other connections other than time--no motive, no evidence of corrupt officials. Nor have you compared likelihood of your version of events with any other versions. For example, of course it's no coincidence: The US with allies went after the Taliban who couldn't enforce their poppy growing ban and farmers decided to make more money.

You've just accepted the most crackpot version without reasons or proof.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by galexander

Can it be a coincidence that 9/11 and the Allied invasion of Afghanistan happened immediately after the successful ban on opium production by the Taliban in 2000-2001?

And you've presented not one iota of anything that shows any other connections other than time--no motive, no evidence of corrupt officials. Nor have you compared likelihood of your version of events with any other versions. For example, of course it's no coincidence: The US with allies went after the Taliban who couldn't enforce their poppy growing ban and farmers decided to make more money.

You've just accepted the most crackpot version without reasons or proof.

Have a quick search on Google and you'll find all the evidence you want.

In fact the Taliban COULD the enforce the opium ban but the US CANNOT.

I wonder why?

Originally Posted by Home200

I disagree with you about the picture, all those in it have their hands in their pockets, as does Mr whitecap, look behnd the railings and you see a vertical feature, this is what you think is his outline, but it is not! his hand/wrist does not extend below the bar.

All governments are corrupt and sleazy, what's the phrase about absolute power corrupts absolutely?

As for whether 9/11 was a conspiracy I seem to remember some president could not keep a blowjob secret, so what chance would such a large scale event have?
all to often it's authors with a living to make who present these conspiracies and their are too many dumb assed people out there (thank god) who buy this crap.

You except that all governments are sleazy but not the reasons why.

This is a slightly contradictory position to take.

If your next door neighbour were described as sleazy you would expect to ask why. Are they dishonest or involved in criminal activity for example?

Well the same rule that applies to your next door neighbour applies to politicians as well!

Most imediately I am bought to mind of the huge arsenal of Chemical biological and Nuclear (as opposed to "New-Q-la") weapons that were stored in lmost every part of Iraq when under Sadman Insane, the 'intelligence' was supposedly there (government sponsored intelligence) yet when invaded what was actually there? nothing, zilch, just a few obsolete centrifuges which at the rate they were working would have taken some 20,000 years to enrich the uranium (which they did not have).

Today we have a whole bunch of politicians (in the UK )who are fiddling their expenses, no 'alleged' here and no superinjunctions please.

My own local MP (David Willets Con) con being the operative word has an interesting past, some time ago as paymaster general I seem to remember him falling out of favour and resigning over his behaviour, and more recently he has been in the news again (and not beause of his status as minister of universities).

The list of 'naughty' politicians in the UK is almost as long as the list of politicians, local government also seems to be more corrupt than moral.

I cannot imagine that any country could find enough honest people to form a government - even vatican city (a state within a state) has had it's share.

Originally Posted by galexander

Have a quick search on Google and you'll find all the evidence you want.

I hope you realize that most of the information on Google is absolutely crap for reliability or credibility. There's a 49 page + thread on 9/11 idiocy already.
http://thescienceforum.com/9-11-science-18677t.php

In fact the Taliban COULD the enforce the opium ban but the US CANNOT.

I wonder why?

Easy. The US wasn't really trying. You might not have noticed but we were fighting a war. The little effort in counter narcotics that was going on the first several years was WAY down the list of priorities. The Afghan government has the lead in that effort now and it's still full of challenges--namely until the agricultural infrastructure such as wells, dams, irrigation ditches and controls are at least as good as what they were in the mid-70's poppy growing is one of the only viable crops in many parts because it doesn't need much water. Combine that with significant climate drying over the past 40 years, a larger water using population, and fact that many fruit and nut trees take years to establish and it starts to makes even more sense.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Telling the people that dont understand how a false flag works, that dont know about the War Racket, about the lies, half-truth and propaganda the media feeds the public before during and after wars, that 911 is an inside job is like trying to explain a microprocessor to a neanderthal that has no concept of electricity let alone electronics, it does not penetrate their skull, they say things like how can it be secret when a blowjob is not and so on.

Communication requires common references otherwise two people dont understand what the other is saying. Unfortunately most people dont have the time to do the research so its understandable they brush off information that doesnt fit the BS MSM world view.

We have to fight corruption and media propagnada. We have to show examples of lies from the past. Explain to recognize "the dog that didnt bark" to show that even something reported that is somewhat true can be completely misleading and bias, because media focus on this and not on that is itself bias and sometimes very revealling IF you recognize it.

What I think you're missing Icewendigo, is that the majority of Americans "fell for it" because they projected that they might have a place in that racket.

Originally Posted by galexander

The evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is just overwhelming and anyone attempting to deny this evidence on the basis that it’s just a conspiracy theory is in need of a serious health check. The expert opinion of physicists, engineers and demolition specialists as well as the eye witness testimony of the emergency services at the scene on the day, has created a body of evidence that is impossible for any reasonable person to deny.

It's funny how quickly 911 discussion threads end when Steve Jones gets mentioned and all of a sudden we have to discuss real science from a properly academic perspective.

His team actually found samples of undetonated nano-thermite in the dust. Not just thermite, nano thermite, the kind that takes serious technology to manufacture. But you know... BYU, an institution that pretty much bottoms the list for academic integrity when political concerns are at stake, did put him on indefinite academic leave. So, maybe we shouldn't take him seriously....

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...002/7TOCPJ.htm
(originally posted by Giant Evil here: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...8677&start=735)

It is on historical and legal record that government officials can be completely and utterly corrupt when they want to be. New York is a good case example where mayors, magistrates and the police have been brought to book for corrupt and illegal practices. Thailand is another good example where the top gangster running the drugs smuggling, brothels and extortion rackets was found to be the chief of police!

If you also have a problem with such corrupt and sleazy practices from your government then please speak your mind here...........

I'm more concerned about the sleazy practices of us as a population.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by galexander

Have a quick search on Google and you'll find all the evidence you want.

I hope you realize that most of the information on Google is absolutely crap for reliability or credibility. There's a 49 page + thread on 9/11 idiocy already.
http://thescienceforum.com/9-11-science-18677t.php

In fact the Taliban COULD the enforce the opium ban but the US CANNOT.

I wonder why?

Easy. The US wasn't really trying. You might not have noticed but we were fighting a war. The little effort in counter narcotics that was going on the first several years was WAY down the list of priorities. The Afghan government has the lead in that effort now and it's still full of challenges--namely until the agricultural infrastructure such as wells, dams, irrigation ditches and controls are at least as good as what they were in the mid-70's poppy growing is one of the only viable crops in many parts because it doesn't need much water. Combine that with significant climate drying over the past 40 years, a larger water using population, and fact that many fruit and nut trees take years to establish and it starts to makes even more sense.

None of this is true and does not at all accurately describe the current situation in Afghanistan concerning opium production.

For a start the country is now producing more opium than it ever did before the war. How do you explain this?

Further the US has no intention of banning opium in Afghanistan because "the country is not economically ready for it yet."

As far as I am concerned this is not good enough and I fail to be convinced by it.

I like when your response tries to refute what I said by reinforcing it.

Let me break it down for you.
Something like 90% of Afghans are farmers.
The agricultural infrastructure to provide water is a wreck and there's less water to start with.
Meaning the only way to make money as a farmer is growing a cash crop that doesn't use much water....SUCH AS Opium poppies. It is absolutely and irrefutably true that "the country is not economically ready for it yet."


I've been a Soldier for 24 years. I've had thousands of hours of formal training and more the 20 years in my profession of arms and logistics. On the other hand I've had about 2 days of any kind of training on counter narcotics and no practical experience.
Now do you want people like me fighting the Taliban and other insurgent groups in Afghanistan or do you want me destroying the only means for farmers to feed their families?

As far as I am concerned this is not good enough and I fail to be convinced by it/

To be truthful I could give a rats butt about how Afghans make their money--ultimately its their choice and has little to do with protecting the US Constitution. I'm also not too interesting in investing tens of billions more to fix their water distribution systems in a place with a very uncertain future while we're in the mist of an enormous budget crisis. Are you?

Originally Posted by galexander

None of this is true and does not at all accurately describe the current situation in Afghanistan concerning opium production.

For a start the country is now producing more opium than it ever did before the war. How do you explain this?

Further the US has no intention of banning opium in Afghanistan because "the country is not economically ready for it yet."

The sad reality of the situation is that we can't pass a law to ban it because nobody obeys any of the laws we pass anyway. Our coalition government is a government in name only, except maybe in Kabul.

The Taliban, on the other hand, had the ability to both pass and enforce laws. I think main reason so many people join and fight on their side is because they were at least a competent government (though unfortunately a bit oppressive), whereas we're bringing them a totally incompetent government.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by galexander

Can it be a coincidence that 9/11 and the Allied invasion of Afghanistan happened immediately after the successful ban on opium production by the Taliban in 2000-2001?

And you've presented not one iota of anything that shows any other connections other than time--no motive, no evidence of corrupt officials. Nor have you compared likelihood of your version of events with any other versions. For example, of course it's no coincidence: The US with allies went after the Taliban who couldn't enforce their poppy growing ban and farmers decided to make more money.

You've just accepted the most crackpot version without reasons or proof.

The question isn't whether we deliberately fomented the growing of opium. Clearly we did not. Market forces did their thing once the Taliban was out of the picture.

The question is whether the outcome was expected, and whether it was part of the motivation for the whole war to begin with. A foreseeable accident can still be caused on purpose.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I like when your response tries to refute what I said by reinforcing it.

Let me break it down for you.
Something like 90% of Afghans are farmers.
The agricultural infrastructure to provide water is a wreck and there's less water to start with.
Meaning the only way to make money as a farmer is growing a cash crop that doesn't use much water....SUCH AS Opium poppies. It is absolutely and irrefutably true that "the country is not economically ready for it yet."


I've been a Soldier for 24 years. I've had thousands of hours of formal training and more the 20 years in my profession of arms and logistics. On the other hand I've had about 2 days of any kind of training on counter narcotics and no practical experience.
Now do you want people like me fighting the Taliban and other insurgent groups in Afghanistan or do you want me destroying the only means for farmers to feed their families?

As far as I am concerned this is not good enough and I fail to be convinced by it/

To be truthful I could give a rats butt about how Afghans make their money--ultimately its their choice and has little to do with protecting the US Constitution. I'm also not too interesting in investing tens of billions more to fix their water distribution systems in a place with a very uncertain future while we're in the mist of an enormous budget crisis. Are you?

Who said poppies like a dry climate?

Wrong. They like a cool, damp climate such as is often found in Europe. This is why opium is grown high up in the mountains in South East Asia.

And you seem to have a very lax attitude when it comes to the international drugs trade. Presumably this is as a result of your training as a soldier?

The truth is hard drugs are a problem and so is organised crime.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

None of this is true and does not at all accurately describe the current situation in Afghanistan concerning opium production.

For a start the country is now producing more opium than it ever did before the war. How do you explain this?

Further the US has no intention of banning opium in Afghanistan because "the country is not economically ready for it yet."

The sad reality of the situation is that we can't pass a law to ban it because nobody obeys any of the laws we pass anyway. Our coalition government is a government in name only, except maybe in Kabul.

The Taliban, on the other hand, had the ability to both pass and enforce laws. I think main reason so many people join and fight on their side is because they were at least a competent government (though unfortunately a bit oppressive), whereas we're bringing them a totally incompetent government.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by galexander

Can it be a coincidence that 9/11 and the Allied invasion of Afghanistan happened immediately after the successful ban on opium production by the Taliban in 2000-2001?

And you've presented not one iota of anything that shows any other connections other than time--no motive, no evidence of corrupt officials. Nor have you compared likelihood of your version of events with any other versions. For example, of course it's no coincidence: The US with allies went after the Taliban who couldn't enforce their poppy growing ban and farmers decided to make more money.

You've just accepted the most crackpot version without reasons or proof.

The question isn't whether we deliberately fomented the growing of opium. Clearly we did not. Market forces did their thing once the Taliban was out of the picture.

The question is whether the outcome was expected, and whether it was part of the motivation for the whole war to begin with. A foreseeable accident can still be caused on purpose.

Pure BS.

How did the Taliban possess an almost magical ability to ban opium and the coalitian government cannot? Crazy!

Originally Posted by galexander

Pure BS.

How did the Taliban possess an almost magical ability to ban opium and the coalitian government cannot? Crazy!

I suggest it's mostly because the coalition government was not willing to shoot them, their families, or their neighbors squarely in the head due solely to noncompliance.

The only BS I see here is the way you consistently convey your thoughts and your seemingly incessant inability to answer the most simple questions with basic logic and reason; instead jumping repeatedly to ludicrous and asinine conclusions.

Originally Posted by galexander

Who said poppies like a dry climate?

It isn't so much they "like dry climate," as much as they don't require much compared to other cash crops, are drought tolerant and don't need any water for the last month before cultivation. This is ideal for places with seasonal rainfalls such as where the plant originated in Mesopotamia, much of SE Asia that your mentioned (I saw some in the mountains near Chang Mai Thailand recently), and Afghan.

http://www.drugs-forum.com/chemistry...try/opium.html

Also consider if the amount of land farmers can irrigate is limited they'll be encouraged to grow a high yield crop that can tolerate water shortage before harvest--Opium poppies fit this better than just about any other crop. In many provinces of Afghanistan it's a choice between growing opium poppies or starvation.

Another issue we haven't discussed is the poor condition of roads. Most crops such as cotton, wheat, corn etc require a pretty good transportation system able to carry their bulk. Afghanistan has virtually no paved road system, nor rail or rivers to carry bulky crops. Opium on the other hand is compact and relatively easy to move.
--

And you seem to have a very lax attitude when it comes to the international drugs trade.

Perhaps. But I also understand the role of the US military to protect the Constitution and we shed enough blood and treasure already without trying to stop Opium production which has little if anything to do with our Constitutional obligations.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by galexander

Who said poppies like a dry climate?

It isn't so much they "like dry climate," as much as they don't require much compared to other cash crops, are drought tolerant and don't need any water for the last month before cultivation. This is ideal for places with seasonal rainfalls such as where the plant originated in Mesopotamia, much of SE Asia that your mentioned (I saw some in the mountains near Chang Mai Thailand recently), and Afghan.

http://www.drugs-forum.com/chemistry...try/opium.html

Also consider if the amount of land farmers can irrigate is limited they'll be encouraged to grow a high yield crop that can tolerate water shortage before harvest--Opium poppies fit this better than just about any other crop. In many provinces of Afghanistan it's a choice between growing opium poppies or starvation.

Another issue we haven't discussed is the poor condition of roads. Most crops such as cotton, wheat, corn etc require a pretty good transportation system able to carry their bulk. Afghanistan has virtually no paved road system, nor rail or rivers to carry bulky crops. Opium on the other hand is compact and relatively easy to move.
--

And you seem to have a very lax attitude when it comes to the international drugs trade.

Perhaps. But I also understand the role of the US military to protect the Constitution and we shed enough blood and treasure already without trying to stop Opium production which has little if anything to do with our Constitutional obligations.

I understand they also grow hashish in Afghanistan as well.

Now there is a crop that likes plenty of warm weather.

This is an interesting image of US soldiers inspecting an opium field in Afghanistan. But I'm not sure what they are looking for.






And here is an interesting graph showing Afghan opium production over the years:

Originally Posted by galexander

And you seem to have a very lax attitude when it comes to the international drugs trade. Presumably this is as a result of your training as a soldier?

The truth is hard drugs are a problem and so is organised crime.

I don't see why this is a problem. Drug crime is based on the artificial scarcity of drugs created by their being illegal. If they weren't illegal, there would never be enough profit to organize a gang around it.

Probably that will also happen to a lesser degree if the world drug supply simply increases also. We'll see a shift away from drug gangs and toward individual dealers (with the degree of shift depending on how much the world wide supply has increased, so not necessarily a huge shift if we're only talking about Afghanistan's production). It's just like how Marijuana is more often traded by solo operators in states where it's easy to grow.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

And you seem to have a very lax attitude when it comes to the international drugs trade. Presumably this is as a result of your training as a soldier?

The truth is hard drugs are a problem and so is organised crime.

I don't see why this is a problem. Drug crime is based on the artificial scarcity of drugs created by their being illegal. If they weren't illegal, there would never be enough profit to organize a gang around it.

Probably that will also happen to a lesser degree if the world drug supply simply increases also. We'll see a shift away from drug gangs and toward individual dealers (with the degree of shift depending on how much the world wide supply has increased, so not necessarily a huge shift if we're only talking about Afghanistan's production). It's just like how Marijuana is more often traded by solo operators in states where it's easy to grow.

Hard drugs are a problem.

They are highly addictive and are dangerous to use.

Further there is also much drugs related crime such as theft from persons funding their habits.

You can probably see that I'm in favor of legalizing them. I guess if you prefer to keep the illegal then it would bother you for the supply to grow.

Originally Posted by kojax

You can probably see that I'm in favor of legalizing them. I guess if you prefer to keep the illegal then it would bother you for the supply to grow.

I can understand the rational behind legalizing drugs to cut out the profits to organised crime but even alcohol damages a large number of peoples' health each year.

Compare this with a psychologically and physically addictive drug with which it is also possible to over-dose on.

I strongly doubt such a legalization would last that long.

Though I once read somewhere that heroin was actually legal in Iran but couldn't find a reference to this searching Google.

[quote="galexander"]I can understand the rational behind legalizing drugs to cut out the profits to organised crime but even alcohol damages a large number of peoples' health each year.[/quote]Making drugs illegal not only damages the health of some drug users, but the health of those individuals robbed and mugged to acquire money to buy the illegal drugs.

[quote="Ophiolite"]

Originally Posted by galexander

I can understand the rational behind legalizing drugs to cut out the profits to organised crime but even alcohol damages a large number of peoples' health each year.[/quote]Making drugs illegal not only damages the health of some drug users, but the health of those individuals robbed and mugged to acquire money to buy the illegal drugs.

The purpose of this thread wasn't really to discuss whether drugs should be legalized or not.

I personally can see both sides of the coin.

If your central thesis is that drug profits were the motive, or one of the motives, behind the war, then you're going to need an explanation for how the people who precipitated that war are going to be able to steer the profits back into their own bank accounts.

I doubt opium growers in Afghanistan are giving them a cut of the action, but someone must be buying it, and probably the Taliban wouldn't buy it, so I wonder who? Those farmers aren't in any position to move the product on their own, unless it's going to neighboring countries like the various "stans" to their north, or Pakistan, or China.

Originally Posted by kojax

If your central thesis is that drug profits were the motive, or one of the motives, behind the war, then you're going to need an explanation for how the people who precipitated that war are going to be able to steer the profits back into their own bank accounts.

I doubt opium growers in Afghanistan are giving them a cut of the action, but someone must be buying it, and probably the Taliban wouldn't buy it, so I wonder who? Those farmers aren't in any position to move the product on their own, unless it's going to neighboring countries like the various "stans" to their north, or Pakistan, or China.

A ridiculous query to make.

Every single product on Earth is based upon a chain of different producers.

If one part of the chain fails it effects all the other businesses down the line.

I'm not going to give a lecture on the economics of sale and production, work it out yourself.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by kojax

If your central thesis is that drug profits were the motive, or one of the motives, behind the war, then you're going to need an explanation for how the people who precipitated that war are going to be able to steer the profits back into their own bank accounts.

I doubt opium growers in Afghanistan are giving them a cut of the action, but someone must be buying it, and probably the Taliban wouldn't buy it, so I wonder who? Those farmers aren't in any position to move the product on their own, unless it's going to neighboring countries like the various "stans" to their north, or Pakistan, or China.

A ridiculous query to make.

Every single product on Earth is based upon a chain of different producers.

If one part of the chain fails it effects all the other businesses down the line.

I'm not going to give a lecture on the economics of sale and production, work it out yourself.

What benefit is it to a major drug cartel to get Afghan farmers to grow more product if they can't control where that product goes?

You must understand that, in the drug industry, those economics are horribly skewed. Sometimes an increase in the scarcity of supply is more profitable, instead of less profitable. Indeed, it is quite often the case in the drug trade, because eliminating competition plays a different role than it would play in a legitimate trade. Drug dealers shoot each other to death over territory, in order to prevent rivals from selling to their own customers. It's a major component of drug violence.

It's more difficult for a bigwig to profit in an environment where the little guy has almost the same access to product as they do. New operators will start to show up with product ready to sell. The moment they kill off one crew, a new one pops up ready to try. The chaos of Afghanistan probably opens up a lot of unintended supply lines, so the number of ways new people can enter the trade goes up. On the one hand their sales are going down. On the other hand, they're having to hire more guns.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by kojax

If your central thesis is that drug profits were the motive, or one of the motives, behind the war, then you're going to need an explanation for how the people who precipitated that war are going to be able to steer the profits back into their own bank accounts.

I doubt opium growers in Afghanistan are giving them a cut of the action, but someone must be buying it, and probably the Taliban wouldn't buy it, so I wonder who? Those farmers aren't in any position to move the product on their own, unless it's going to neighboring countries like the various "stans" to their north, or Pakistan, or China.

A ridiculous query to make.

Every single product on Earth is based upon a chain of different producers.

If one part of the chain fails it effects all the other businesses down the line.

I'm not going to give a lecture on the economics of sale and production, work it out yourself.

What benefit is it to a major drug cartel to get Afghan farmers to grow more product if they can't control where that product goes?

You must understand that, in the drug industry, those economics are horribly skewed. Sometimes an increase in the scarcity of supply is more profitable, instead of less profitable. Indeed, it is quite often the case in the drug trade, because eliminating competition plays a different role than it would play in a legitimate trade. Drug dealers shoot each other to death over territory, in order to prevent rivals from selling to their own customers. It's a major component of drug violence.

It's more difficult for a bigwig to profit in an environment where the little guy has almost the same access to product as they do. New operators will start to show up with product ready to sell. The moment they kill off one crew, a new one pops up ready to try. The chaos of Afghanistan probably opens up a lot of unintended supply lines, so the number of ways new people can enter the trade goes up. On the one hand their sales are going down. On the other hand, they're having to hire more guns.

I'm just following the simple logic; the more hard drugs you sell, the more money you make.

Originally Posted by galexander

I'm just following the simple logic; the more hard drugs you sell, the more money you make.

Sorry, but you are (once again) quite wrong. That's not simple logic. That's flawed understanding on your part. Let me demonstrate with an example.

You sell 100 units of drug at a price of $10 each, you have a revenue of $1,000.

However, let's assume that the supply goes down, and you have less of the drug to sell, but demand remains the same. This means you can charge more. Let's say the supply is so low that the price jumps 3x.

Now, you can sell half the drugs... let's say 50 units... at a price of $30 each, and still make $1500.


That's five hundred dollars more earned, even though you sold "less drugs." If you argue this point, or disagree, you're a pitiable fool.

iNow is right on, as far as the maximization of profits goes. Also fewer units at a higher price means you're sharing the money fewer ways, keeping fewer greedy fellow criminals on staff.

Stomach turning as it is, I think the real winners in this scenario might be people involved in human trafficking. Opium has always been associated with brothels, but it's not cost effective to use it if it's too expensive. In this matter, I very much hope I am wrong. I like to hope that the trade isn't big enough to move large amounts of money around, but I don't know. It's hard to get good numbers, because you have to expect that the majority of victims don't end up in a developed country.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

I'm just following the simple logic; the more hard drugs you sell, the more money you make.

Sorry, but you are (once again) quite wrong. That's not simple logic. That's flawed understanding on your part. Let me demonstrate with an example.

You sell 100 units of drug at a price of $10 each, you have a revenue of $1,000.

However, let's assume that the supply goes down, and you have less of the drug to sell, but demand remains the same. This means you can charge more. Let's say the supply is so low that the price jumps 3x.

Now, you can sell half the drugs... let's say 50 units... at a price of $30 each, and still make $1500.


That's five hundred dollars more earned, even though you sold "less drugs." If you argue this point, or disagree, you're a pitiable fool.

Not so fast inow!

One extremely important factor you overlook is at what price did the seller on the street purchase his supply for?

That would have been far higher as well and so on backwards all the way down the line.

And with less product to sell, sellers are likely to go out of business if they have nothing to sell.

The simple economics is that mass sales at lower prices brings far more profit than a limited highly priced product.

This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product.

Understand now?

I just assumed most people understood things like this.

Your response shows little more than your personal ignorance. I am sorry you were unable to grasp my simple point. The breakdown in communication here did not originate with me, and I didn't even touch on the concept of how volume discounts impact overall profit margin.

Originally Posted by galexander

Not so fast inow!

One extremely important factor you overlook is at what price did the seller on the street purchase his supply for?

Sellers on the street are unlikely to have played any role at all in the war in Afghanistan. You're right that it's better for them, but something being better for the seller on the street doesn't mean it's better for the cartel.

In all likelihood, the cartel doesn't care one way or another if that guy prospers, gets arrested, or dies.

That would have been far higher as well and so on backwards all the way down the line.

Again your application of economic theory would be accurate if we weren't talking about the crime world. The same territorialism that motivates drug dealers to kill one another over customers, can motivate them to kill one another over supply. Also it can be very dangerous to be a supplier and ask too high a price if you don't have the guns to protect yourself and your product.

If a cartel thinks killing you for your drugs is cheaper than paying you, well.... you'd better be in a pretty good relationship with them so they'll have to factor in loss of repeat sales, or it's all over for you. (Time to turn states evidence and enter witness protection if you can.)

And with less product to sell, sellers are likely to go out of business if they have nothing to sell.

Small sellers are. Big sellers never run out entirely.

The simple economics is that mass sales at lower prices brings far more profit than a limited highly priced product.

But who gets that profit?

This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product.

They do that because they have unlimited control over their brand. Certain brands like say Gucci, still keep their price really high knowing it will prevent them from making a lot of sales.

In the drug world, however, a cartel can't simply name a high price and then start producing less drugs. They run into crime related problems.

1- How do you prevent others from filling the same demand you're leaving unfilled? (The answer is: with guns, but you'll need more and more guns the more supply you're trying to suppress.)

2 - If your competitors are making more sales/money than you are, then they can hire more guns and push you out. That's one of the reasons why the mafia wasn't able to maintain its stand on refusing to deal drugs. (However, they won't be out selling you if the reason you move small volumes is because world wide supply is smaller.)

2- Your henchmen are mostly greedy bastards who will steal from you if given enough incentive (such as stockpiled supply that isn't getting moved), or break away and start their own operations if they think the boss isn't maximizing profits.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

Not so fast inow!

One extremely important factor you overlook is at what price did the seller on the street purchase his supply for?

Sellers on the street are unlikely to have played any role at all in the war in Afghanistan. You're right that it's better for them, but something being better for the seller on the street doesn't mean it's better for the cartel.

In all likelihood, the cartel doesn't care one way or another if that guy prospers, gets arrested, or dies.

That would have been far higher as well and so on backwards all the way down the line.

Again your application of economic theory would be accurate if we weren't talking about the crime world. The same territorialism that motivates drug dealers to kill one another over customers, can motivate them to kill one another over supply. Also it can be very dangerous to be a supplier and ask too high a price if you don't have the guns to protect yourself and your product.

If a cartel thinks killing you for your drugs is cheaper than paying you, well.... you'd better be in a pretty good relationship with them so they'll have to factor in loss of repeat sales, or it's all over for you. (Time to turn states evidence and enter witness protection if you can.)

And with less product to sell, sellers are likely to go out of business if they have nothing to sell.

Small sellers are. Big sellers never run out entirely.

The simple economics is that mass sales at lower prices brings far more profit than a limited highly priced product.

But who gets that profit?

This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product.

They do that because they have unlimited control over their brand. Certain brands like say Gucci, still keep their price really high knowing it will prevent them from making a lot of sales.

In the drug world, however, a cartel can't simply name a high price and then start producing less drugs. They run into crime related problems.

1- How do you prevent others from filling the same demand you're leaving unfilled? (The answer is: with guns, but you'll need more and more guns the more supply you're trying to suppress.)

2 - If your competitors are making more sales/money than you are, then they can hire more guns and push you out. That's one of the reasons why the mafia wasn't able to maintain its stand on refusing to deal drugs. (However, they won't be out selling you if the reason you move small volumes is because world wide supply is smaller.)

2- Your henchmen are mostly greedy bastards who will steal from you if given enough incentive (such as stockpiled supply that isn't getting moved), or break away and start their own operations if they think the boss isn't maximizing profits.

Who said anything about cartels?

There is more than likely strong competition even in the world of the illegal drugs trade.

Originally Posted by galexander

This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product.

Rolls Royce, Rolex, H.Huntsman and Sons, Cartier, J. Purdey & Sons? These go for a mass market and cheaper product? Try getting a suit form Huntsman for less than $5,000.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product.

Rolls Royce, Rolex, H.Huntsman and Sons, Cartier, J. Purdey & Sons? These go for a mass market and cheaper product? Try getting a suit form Huntsman for less than $5,000.

So?

I fail to see the connection.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product.

Rolls Royce, Rolex, H.Huntsman and Sons, Cartier, J. Purdey & Sons? These go for a mass market and cheaper product? Try getting a suit form Huntsman for less than $5,000.

So?

I fail to see the connection.

Those are top brands. However, instead of looking for a wider market at a cheaper price, they artificially keep the supply small (by producing less of their brand, and refusing to let anyone else produce it on their behalf) in order order to keep the sale price very high.

Drug cartels can't really do that because it's very difficult to enforce a trademark in the criminal underworld. You can't exactly take your competitor to court and sue them if they decide to use your brand name without your permission.

Originally Posted by galexander

Who said anything about cartels?

There is more than likely strong competition even in the world of the illegal drugs trade.

Other than a cartel, who could have flexed their muscles to get a war in Afghanistan with the design of increasing opium production? Who is both big enough to achieve that, and likely to gain by achieving it?

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product.

Rolls Royce, Rolex, H.Huntsman and Sons, Cartier, J. Purdey & Sons? These go for a mass market and cheaper product? Try getting a suit form Huntsman for less than $5,000.

So?

I fail to see the connection.

Those are top brands. However, instead of looking for a wider market at a cheaper price, they artificially keep the supply small (by producing less of their brand, and refusing to let anyone else produce it on their behalf) in order order to keep the sale price very high.

Drug cartels can't really do that because it's very difficult to enforce a trademark in the criminal underworld. You can't exactly take your competitor to court and sue them if they decide to use your brand name without your permission.

Originally Posted by galexander

Who said anything about cartels?

There is more than likely strong competition even in the world of the illegal drugs trade.

Other than a cartel, who could have flexed their muscles to get a war in Afghanistan with the design of increasing opium production? Who is both big enough to achieve that, and likely to gain by achieving it?

Come on now.

The average drugs user cannot afford to buy a Rolls Royce or a suit from Huntsman.

This has little relevance to the discussion at all.

You are also suggesting that farmers make more money when there is a drought and all their crops wither because this puts the price of the harvest up and so they make more money.

You must live in a peculiar world if you think the economics works like this.

Originally Posted by galexander

Come on now.

The average drugs user cannot afford to buy a Rolls Royce or a suit from Huntsman.

This has little relevance to the discussion at all.

You made this absolute, categorical statement:

This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product.

If this statement was not relevant to the discussion, why did you make it?

At any rate I have demonstrated, beyond doubt, that your statement is false. Any statement from you must be considered unreliable, until and unless there is independent corroboration of it validity.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

Come on now.

The average drugs user cannot afford to buy a Rolls Royce or a suit from Huntsman.

This has little relevance to the discussion at all.

You made this absolute, categorical statement:

This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product.

If this statement was not relevant to the discussion, why did you make it?

At any rate I have demonstrated, beyond doubt, that your statement is false. Any statement from you must be considered unreliable, until and unless there is independent corroboration of it validity.

This is pointless hair splitting, you know exactly what I was saying.

You seem to be attempting to prove that governments aren't sleazy by clouding the issue with petty economics.

No, I am demonstrating that you are incapable of writing a logical, self consistent sentence that reflects reality. There is a world of difference between saying "some brands go for cost cutting" and "all brands go for cost cutting". If you are unable to appreciate this distinction, and more importantly the necessity to be precise in ones use of language in a debate, then you have no right to be in any debate.

Originally Posted by galexander

This is pointless hair splitting, you know exactly what I was saying.

I can't speak for Ophiolite, but I definitely don't know exactly what you are saying. You're not making any sense. Why is it hair splitting?

You seem to be attempting to prove that governments aren't sleazy by clouding the issue with petty economics.

What?!?!?!? Nobody said governments aren't sleazy. I think if you polled all the participants on this thread, you'd find that all of them/us agree to some level or another that governments are clearly sleazy. Who trusts a politician these days?

However, evil people usually prefer to spend their resources pursuing outcomes that profit them, rather than just ruining the world for the sake of ruining it. If none of the major bad guys out there stands to gain by increasing opium production in Afghanistan, then ...... why would they bother themselves to orchestrate an invasion over it?

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

No, I am demonstrating that you are incapable of writing a logical, self consistent sentence that reflects reality. There is a world of difference between saying "some brands go for cost cutting" and "all brands go for cost cutting". If you are unable to appreciate this distinction, and more importantly the necessity to be precise in ones use of language in a debate, then you have no right to be in any debate.

This thread concerns government sleaze and NOT petty economics.

End of story!

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

This is pointless hair splitting, you know exactly what I was saying.

I can't speak for Ophiolite, but I definitely don't know exactly what you are saying. You're not making any sense. Why is it hair splitting?

You seem to be attempting to prove that governments aren't sleazy by clouding the issue with petty economics.

What?!?!?!? Nobody said governments aren't sleazy. I think if you polled all the participants on this thread, you'd find that all of them/us agree to some level or another that governments are clearly sleazy. Who trusts a politician these days?

However, evil people usually prefer to spend their resources pursuing outcomes that profit them, rather than just ruining the world for the sake of ruining it. If none of the major bad guys out there stands to gain by increasing opium production in Afghanistan, then ...... why would they bother themselves to orchestrate an invasion over it?

You admit that governments are sleazy but can you ask yourself why they are sleazy?

Because they are involved in corruption and gangsterism. Q.E.D.

Originally Posted by galexander

This thread concerns government sleaze and NOT petty economics.

End of story!

The story does not end because you say it ends. This thread is a discussion, or debate and such discussions and debates are required to follow certain rules, both implicit and explicit.

One set of rules governs how the participants express themselves, another set addresses their attitudes to the debate. You are infringing both sets of rules,

Firstly, you have made an inaccurate and misleading statement in support of your argument. At best this invalidates that aspect of your argument, at worst it dismantles your entire argument. Moreover, it casts serious doubt on the quality and hence relevance of your entire structure, since members may now suspect any (perhaps all) of your statements may be inaccurate and misleading.

You could have addressed this issue by acknowledging the error when it was first pointed out, but instead you chose to infringe elements of the second set of rules. You have avoided acknowledging the error, but have instead questioned the relevancy of the statement, even although you were the one who made it. Some might say this inability to acknowledge a mistake is a character flaw, I just think it's rather pathetic.

You have an opportunity to correct both these infringements in your next post. Take it.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

This thread concerns government sleaze and NOT petty economics.

End of story!

The story does not end because you say it ends. This thread is a discussion, or debate and such discussions and debates are required to follow certain rules, both implicit and explicit.

One set of rules governs how the participants express themselves, another set addresses their attitudes to the debate. You are infringing both sets of rules,

Firstly, you have made an inaccurate and misleading statement in support of your argument. At best this invalidates that aspect of your argument, at worst it dismantles your entire argument. Moreover, it casts serious doubt on the quality and hence relevance of your entire structure, since members may now suspect any (perhaps all) of your statements may be inaccurate and misleading.

You could have addressed this issue by acknowledging the error when it was first pointed out, but instead you chose to infringe elements of the second set of rules. You have avoided acknowledging the error, but have instead questioned the relevancy of the statement, even although you were the one who made it. Some might say this inability to acknowledge a mistake is a character flaw, I just think it's rather pathetic.

You have an opportunity to correct both these infringements in your next post. Take it.

BS!

Firstly, you have made an inaccurate and misleading statement in support of your argument.

BS!

At best this invalidates that aspect of your argument, at worst it dismantles your entire argument.

BS!

Moreover, it casts serious doubt on the quality and hence relevance of your entire structure, since members may now suspect any (perhaps all) of your statements may be inaccurate and misleading.

BS!

You could have addressed this issue by acknowledging the error when it was first pointed out, but instead you chose to infringe elements of the second set of rules.

BS!

You have avoided acknowledging the error, but have instead questioned the relevancy of the statement, even although you were the one who made it.

BS!

Some might say this inability to acknowledge a mistake is a character flaw, I just think it's rather pathetic.

BS! BS! BS! BS! BS!

I hope I have got the message across!

The only bullshit here is coming from you. I have no intention of ending this discussion until you have implicitly, or explicitly acknowledged you are incorrect.

I return to the original statement you made, the refutation of which you claim is bullshit.

You stated that "This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product."

That is an absolute statement. Do you deny you made it?

I then demonstrated that the statement was false by citing examples of top brand names that go for exclusivity and high price. Do you deny that these top brand names do not go for exclusivity? Do you deny that they are not top brands?

Any denials to any of the above will be in the face of overwhelming evidence against.

Therefore, your claim of BS on the first point is utterly without merit.

galexander, shouting bs in a loud voice is not an effective way to win an argument, except among children and members of the mafia and such. You have lost this argument thoroughly. Your best plan is to acknowledge that and move on. It would be better that people think of you as someone who occassionally does foolish things, than a proven fool.

Edit: I just looked again at your follow on statements. Quite incredible, you openly call BS on matters that are in this thread in black and white. Your commitment to demonstrating there is not an ounce of logic in your thinking devalues anything of substance there may have been in your arguments in any thread.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

The only bullshit here is coming from you. I have no intention of ending this discussion until you have implicitly, or explicitly acknowledged you are incorrect.

I return to the original statement you made, the refutation of which you claim is bullshit.

You stated that "This is why all the top brand names go for a mass market and a correspondingly cheaper product."

That is an absolute statement. Do you deny you made it?

I then demonstrated that the statement was false by citing examples of top brand names that go for exclusivity and high price. Do you deny that these top brand names do not go for exclusivity? Do you deny that they are not top brands?

Any denials to any of the above will be in the face of overwhelming evidence against.

Therefore, your claim of BS on the first point is utterly without merit.

galexander, shouting bs in a loud voice is not an effective way to win an argument, except among children and members of the mafia and such. You have lost this argument thoroughly. Your best plan is to acknowledge that and move on. It would be better that people think of you as someone who occassionally does foolish things, than a proven fool.

Edit: I just looked again at your follow on statements. Quite incredible, you openly call BS on matters that are in this thread in black and white. Your commitment to demonstrating there is not an ounce of logic in your thinking devalues anything of substance there may have been in your arguments in any thread.

As I have already stated, you know exactly well what I was trying to say and you are just hair splitting.

If you can't accept this answer I can only assume you have been drinking too much whiskey!

It is not hair splitting to disintguish between an absolute and a conditional. Nor are any of the other points in which you have applied faulty, or utterly wrong logic, matters of hairsplitting. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are a moron, with the intellectual capacity of a kangaroo's turd, the debating skills of a dyslexic e.coli and the knowledge base of a gabbroic diapir. You are now number four on my ignore list. Asshole!

Originally Posted by galexander

You admit that governments are sleazy but can you ask yourself why they are sleazy?

Because they are involved in corruption and gangsterism. Q.E.D.

Perhaps so, but the war in Afghanistan doesn't prove it or even demonstrate it.

....Unless, the gangster faction in question is a human trafficking ring, in which case cheap opium might be quite a motivation. It's not impossible that this could be the case. Maybe they've got incriminating photographs of some government officials or something like that to use as leverage, or sell their services to some very powerful individuals.

However, a drug cartel would have no incentive to convince anyone to invade Afghanistan unless they could claim a substantial fraction the resulting opium supply to themselves exclusively.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

It is not hair splitting to disintguish between an absolute and a conditional. Nor are any of the other points in which you have applied faulty, or utterly wrong logic, matters of hairsplitting. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are a moron, with the intellectual capacity of a kangaroo's turd, the debating skills of a dyslexic e.coli and the knowledge base of a gabbroic diapir. You are now number four on my ignore list. Asshole!

Yeah and you're a Scots git!

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

You admit that governments are sleazy but can you ask yourself why they are sleazy?

Because they are involved in corruption and gangsterism. Q.E.D.

Perhaps so, but the war in Afghanistan doesn't prove it or even demonstrate it.

....Unless, the gangster faction in question is a human trafficking ring, in which case cheap opium might be quite a motivation. It's not impossible that this could be the case. Maybe they've got incriminating photographs of some government officials or something like that to use as leverage, or sell their services to some very powerful individuals.

However, a drug cartel would have no incentive to convince anyone to invade Afghanistan unless they could claim a substantial fraction the resulting opium supply to themselves exclusively.

Beginner's stuff. You obviously live in a small world kojax.

As for incriminating photographs of government officials, you ought to read up on the true life history of J. Edgar Hoover. It appears in his day he had mud on just about every politician there was and for questionable reasons. He was alleged to have routinely used this 'mud' to arm twist anyone who didn't like him and wanted to see the back of him. He was also known to spend time in the company of known Mafia men from whom he received many favours.

If there is any example of a corrupt government official then it has to be J. Edgar Hoover, the previous head of the FBI!

http://www.amazon.com/Official-Confi...7907041&sr=1-1

galexander - Your posts seem to rely on very loose connections, not much evidence (and that which you do use tends to be cherry picked), and there's not much logic. Then, when you are challenged, you resort to very immature responses and continue to evade the criticism.

Can you please work to improve these characteristics of your behavior?

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

It is not hair splitting to disintguish between an absolute and a conditional. Nor are any of the other points in which you have applied faulty, or utterly wrong logic, matters of hairsplitting. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are a moron, with the intellectual capacity of a kangaroo's turd, the debating skills of a dyslexic e.coli and the knowledge base of a gabbroic diapir. You are now number four on my ignore list. Asshole!

Yeah and you're a Scots git!

Wash your mouth out.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

You admit that governments are sleazy but can you ask yourself why they are sleazy?

Because they are involved in corruption and gangsterism. Q.E.D.

Perhaps so, but the war in Afghanistan doesn't prove it or even demonstrate it.

....Unless, the gangster faction in question is a human trafficking ring, in which case cheap opium might be quite a motivation. It's not impossible that this could be the case. Maybe they've got incriminating photographs of some government officials or something like that to use as leverage, or sell their services to some very powerful individuals.

However, a drug cartel would have no incentive to convince anyone to invade Afghanistan unless they could claim a substantial fraction the resulting opium supply to themselves exclusively.

Beginner's stuff. You obviously live in a small world kojax.

Yeah definitely it's beginner stuff.

As for incriminating photographs of government officials, you ought to read up on the true life history of J. Edgar Hoover. It appears in his day he had mud on just about every politician there was and for questionable reasons. He was alleged to have routinely used this 'mud' to arm twist anyone who didn't like him and wanted to see the back of him. He was also known to spend time in the company of known Mafia men from whom he received many favours.

If there is any example of a corrupt government official then it has to be J. Edgar Hoover, the previous head of the FBI!

http://www.amazon.com/Official-Confi...7907041&sr=1-1

You're forgetting how easy it is to run damage control against that stuff nowadays. Just leak the photographs to a tabloid, along with a bunch of doctored/fake photographs (once it is pointed out that some of the photos in the batch have been doctored, people will assume the rest were doctored as well.)

Then plaster rumors all over the net, and make sure a lot of them are preposterous exaggerations. Try to throw in some alien stuff, like bloggers using the photos to try and prove you are an alien in disguise. If you do things right, whatever truth those photos were meant to expose will become totally invisible, hidden forever in plain sight.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

It is not hair splitting to disintguish between an absolute and a conditional. Nor are any of the other points in which you have applied faulty, or utterly wrong logic, matters of hairsplitting. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are a moron, with the intellectual capacity of a kangaroo's turd, the debating skills of a dyslexic e.coli and the knowledge base of a gabbroic diapir. You are now number four on my ignore list. Asshole!

Yeah and you're a Scots git!

Wash your mouth out.

Tell Ophiolite to wash his mouth out you Reaganite!

Originally Posted by inow

galexander - Your posts seem to rely on very loose connections, not much evidence (and that which you do use tends to be cherry picked), and there's not much logic. Then, when you are challenged, you resort to very immature responses and continue to evade the criticism.

Can you please work to improve these characteristics of your behavior?

In your very own opinion.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

You admit that governments are sleazy but can you ask yourself why they are sleazy?

Because they are involved in corruption and gangsterism. Q.E.D.

Perhaps so, but the war in Afghanistan doesn't prove it or even demonstrate it.

....Unless, the gangster faction in question is a human trafficking ring, in which case cheap opium might be quite a motivation. It's not impossible that this could be the case. Maybe they've got incriminating photographs of some government officials or something like that to use as leverage, or sell their services to some very powerful individuals.

However, a drug cartel would have no incentive to convince anyone to invade Afghanistan unless they could claim a substantial fraction the resulting opium supply to themselves exclusively.

Beginner's stuff. You obviously live in a small world kojax.

Yeah definitely it's beginner stuff.

As for incriminating photographs of government officials, you ought to read up on the true life history of J. Edgar Hoover. It appears in his day he had mud on just about every politician there was and for questionable reasons. He was alleged to have routinely used this 'mud' to arm twist anyone who didn't like him and wanted to see the back of him. He was also known to spend time in the company of known Mafia men from whom he received many favours.

If there is any example of a corrupt government official then it has to be J. Edgar Hoover, the previous head of the FBI!

http://www.amazon.com/Official-Confi...7907041&sr=1-1

You're forgetting how easy it is to run damage control against that stuff nowadays. Just leak the photographs to a tabloid, along with a bunch of doctored/fake photographs (once it is pointed out that some of the photos in the batch have been doctored, people will assume the rest were doctored as well.)

Then plaster rumors all over the net, and make sure a lot of them are preposterous exaggerations. Try to throw in some alien stuff, like bloggers using the photos to try and prove you are an alien in disguise. If you do things right, whatever truth those photos were meant to expose will become totally invisible, hidden forever in plain sight.

I'm so glad you referred to the term "Damage Limitation Exercise" of which the F.B.I. are dab hands at!

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

It is not hair splitting to disintguish between an absolute and a conditional. Nor are any of the other points in which you have applied faulty, or utterly wrong logic, matters of hairsplitting. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you are a moron, with the intellectual capacity of a kangaroo's turd, the debating skills of a dyslexic e.coli and the knowledge base of a gabbroic diapir. You are now number four on my ignore list. Asshole!

Yeah and you're a Scots git!

Wash your mouth out.

Tell Ophiolite to wash his mouth out you Reaganite!

Reaganite, I like that.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by galexander

You admit that governments are sleazy but can you ask yourself why they are sleazy?

Because they are involved in corruption and gangsterism. Q.E.D.

Perhaps so, but the war in Afghanistan doesn't prove it or even demonstrate it.

....Unless, the gangster faction in question is a human trafficking ring, in which case cheap opium might be quite a motivation. It's not impossible that this could be the case. Maybe they've got incriminating photographs of some government officials or something like that to use as leverage, or sell their services to some very powerful individuals.

However, a drug cartel would have no incentive to convince anyone to invade Afghanistan unless they could claim a substantial fraction the resulting opium supply to themselves exclusively.

Beginner's stuff. You obviously live in a small world kojax.

Yeah definitely it's beginner stuff.

As for incriminating photographs of government officials, you ought to read up on the true life history of J. Edgar Hoover. It appears in his day he had mud on just about every politician there was and for questionable reasons. He was alleged to have routinely used this 'mud' to arm twist anyone who didn't like him and wanted to see the back of him. He was also known to spend time in the company of known Mafia men from whom he received many favours.

If there is any example of a corrupt government official then it has to be J. Edgar Hoover, the previous head of the FBI!

http://www.amazon.com/Official-Confi...7907041&sr=1-1

You're forgetting how easy it is to run damage control against that stuff nowadays. Just leak the photographs to a tabloid, along with a bunch of doctored/fake photographs (once it is pointed out that some of the photos in the batch have been doctored, people will assume the rest were doctored as well.)

Then plaster rumors all over the net, and make sure a lot of them are preposterous exaggerations. Try to throw in some alien stuff, like bloggers using the photos to try and prove you are an alien in disguise. If you do things right, whatever truth those photos were meant to expose will become totally invisible, hidden forever in plain sight.

It isn't just Anthony Summers who is saying this about J. Edgar Hoover, but scores of witnesses who were employed at the FBI and who witnessed Hoover's idiosyncratic and autocratic behaviour first hand.

"Puppetmaster: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover" by Richard Hack also covers many of the allegations made by Summers but does not go into the same detail.

Another interesting observation concerning J. Edgar Hoover is that while in office he always denied the existence of organised crime and for this reason refused to investigate their activities despite repeated requests from many quarters.

This position went entirely against all the evidence as well as all logic!

I can only assume at this point that the rest of you lot have given up and that I have won the argument!

Hurrah!!!

It lost interest once you started prattling about J. Edgar Hoover which had nothing to do with the thread. We've been all at the edge of our seats waiting for you to reveal that smoking gun connection between Afghan drug money and the Bush & Cheny families or something equivalent.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It lost interest once you started prattling about J. Edgar Hoover which had nothing to do with the thread. We've been all at the edge of our seats waiting for you to reveal that smoking gun connection between Afghan drug money and the Bush & Cheny families or something equivalent.

But the smoking gun has already been revealed.

Take a closer look at some of the graphs I've reproduced on this thread.

Does that not count as a smoking gun?

If it doesn't then I don't know what does!

Originally Posted by galexander

I can only assume at this point that the rest of you lot have given up and that I have won the argument!

This is a bit like saying my dog has won the argument of requesting to go for a walk when I react by continuing to ignore him. What a dumbass thing to suggest, but I guess given the source of the assertion it's at least consistent and inline with past contributions.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

I can only assume at this point that the rest of you lot have given up and that I have won the argument!

This is a bit like saying my dog has won the argument of requesting to go for a walk when I react by continuing to ignore him. What a dumbass thing to suggest, but I guess given the source of the assertion it's at least consistent and inline with past contributions.

As far as I am concerned it is me who is taking you for a walk!

Between the poppy fields and the addict there is a lengthy chain of middlemen who profit and, legal or not, have a vested interest in continuing the traffic. The idea that legalization will reduce consumption and thence problems associated with addiction has no basis in fact.

What IS a fact is that the money, immense sums of it, is continually following a similar chain- where and to what end? At the end of it you will find your answers.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

I can only assume at this point that the rest of you lot have given up and that I have won the argument!

This is a bit like saying my dog has won the argument of requesting to go for a walk when I react by continuing to ignore him. What a dumbass thing to suggest, but I guess given the source of the assertion it's at least consistent and inline with past contributions.

As far as I am concerned it is me who is taking you for a walk!

Therefore the dog inow has won the argument. He has been taken for a walk. That was his goal. You acknowledge the goal has been achieved.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

I can only assume at this point that the rest of you lot have given up and that I have won the argument!

This is a bit like saying my dog has won the argument of requesting to go for a walk when I react by continuing to ignore him. What a dumbass thing to suggest, but I guess given the source of the assertion it's at least consistent and inline with past contributions.

As far as I am concerned it is me who is taking you for a walk!

Therefore the dog inow has won the argument. He has been taken for a walk. That was his goal. You acknowledge the goal has been achieved.

Dream on..........

And one further point. I would seriously suggest you think about changing your motto as it is obvious you don't believe a single word of it:

The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane.

Originally Posted by galexander

Dream on..........

Yes, a rather powerful counterargument, indeed. Well done, sir. The nuance and subtly abound, crushing all legitimate criticisms leveled at you throughout. I've never before seen such a profound checkmate so concisely delivered. You truly are a sight to behold, galexander. You truly are a sight to behold.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Dream on..........

Yes, a rather powerful counterargument, indeed. Well done, sir. The nuance and subtly abound, crushing all legitimate criticisms leveled at you throughout. I've never before seen such a profound checkmate so concisely delivered. You truly are a sight to behold, galexander. You truly are a sight to behold.

And where is your own checkmate smarty pants?

The facts are you have failed to knock down my main thesis delivered in this thread and instead resort to petty quibbles and attempts to knock my character with cheap insults.

And that is very much the level of it.

Originally Posted by galexander

The facts are you have failed to knock down my main thesis delivered in this thread and instead resort to petty quibbles and attempts to knock my character with cheap insults.

And that is very much the level of it.

Not so much, no. Your "main thesis" is so far away from valid that it's "not even wrong." It's not coherent or logical enough to be called wrong or challenged in a head on way. It's just nonsense.

However, I did provide directed responses, yet you assume none have been offered. Many, in fact, have been, by both me and others in this thread. Since reading comprehension is obviously not your strongest quality, I'll share a few of my own replies again below to simplify.

Enjoy.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Pure BS.

How did the Taliban possess an almost magical ability to ban opium and the coalitian government cannot?

I suggest it's mostly because the coalition government was not willing to shoot them, their families, or their neighbors squarely in the head due solely to noncompliance.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

I'm just following the simple logic; the more hard drugs you sell, the more money you make.

Sorry, but you are (once again) quite wrong. That's not simple logic. That's flawed understanding on your part. Let me demonstrate with an example.

You sell 100 units of drug at a price of $10 each, you have a revenue of $1,000.

However, let's assume that the supply goes down, and you have less of the drug to sell, but demand remains the same. This means you can charge more. Let's say the supply is so low that the price jumps 3x.

Now, you can sell half the drugs... let's say 50 units... at a price of $30 each, and still make $1500.


That's five hundred dollars more earned, even though you sold "less drugs." If you argue this point, or disagree, you're a pitiable fool.

Originally Posted by inow

galexander - Your posts seem to rely on very loose connections, not much evidence (and that which you do use tends to be cherry picked), and there's not much logic. Then, when you are challenged, you resort to very immature responses and continue to evade the criticism.

Can you please work to improve these characteristics of your behavior?

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

I can only assume at this point that the rest of you lot have given up and that I have won the argument!

This is a bit like saying my dog has won the argument of requesting to go for a walk when I react by continuing to ignore him.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

The facts are you have failed to knock down my main thesis delivered in this thread and instead resort to petty quibbles and attempts to knock my character with cheap insults.

And that is very much the level of it.

Not so much, no. Your "main thesis" is so far away from valid that it's "not even wrong." It's not coherent or logical enough to be called wrong or challenged in a head on way. It's just nonsense.

However, I did provide directed responses, yet you assume none have been offered. Many, in fact, have been, by both me and others in this thread. Since reading comprehension is obviously not your strongest quality, I'll share a few of my own replies again below to simplify.

Enjoy.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Pure BS.

How did the Taliban possess an almost magical ability to ban opium and the coalitian government cannot?

I suggest it's mostly because the coalition government was not willing to shoot them, their families, or their neighbors squarely in the head due solely to noncompliance.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

I'm just following the simple logic; the more hard drugs you sell, the more money you make.

Sorry, but you are (once again) quite wrong. That's not simple logic. That's flawed understanding on your part. Let me demonstrate with an example.

You sell 100 units of drug at a price of $10 each, you have a revenue of $1,000.

However, let's assume that the supply goes down, and you have less of the drug to sell, but demand remains the same. This means you can charge more. Let's say the supply is so low that the price jumps 3x.

Now, you can sell half the drugs... let's say 50 units... at a price of $30 each, and still make $1500.


That's five hundred dollars more earned, even though you sold "less drugs." If you argue this point, or disagree, you're a pitiable fool.

Originally Posted by inow

galexander - Your posts seem to rely on very loose connections, not much evidence (and that which you do use tends to be cherry picked), and there's not much logic. Then, when you are challenged, you resort to very immature responses and continue to evade the criticism.

Can you please work to improve these characteristics of your behavior?

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

I can only assume at this point that the rest of you lot have given up and that I have won the argument!

This is a bit like saying my dog has won the argument of requesting to go for a walk when I react by continuing to ignore him.

An attempt at a whitewash job.

Result:

FAILURE.



[/url]

Originally Posted by galexander

An attempt at a whitewash job.

Result:

FAILURE.

So instead of actually addressing the raised points you just give a "la la la i dont like it" answer.

An attempt to live within ones one little word and not face reality....success.

Can I ask what anyone thinks the positive net effects on the economy of the USA may be from increasing the imports of narcotics?

On the contrary it sounds like good business for Afghanistan and poor business for America.

American's would spend more money on narcotics, and less money on other consumer goods, industries that produce those other goods fall in direct proportion to the increases yielded by the narcotics farmers.

What's more people that are addicted become less productive workers as their lives are thrown upside down by their addiction. So we have a net loss on the American economy before even beginning to consider the healthcare support and counselling the state has to provide for these people which is ultimately funded by inhibiting the growth of successful businesses and the spending power of all consumers through taxation. I wont even talk about the billions spent on the war effort itself.

It's clearly a lose lose situation for the American economy on a whole, not just economically but politically. I can't see any mechanism which would have your government facilitate such an act knowingly. For it to happen an extremely small group of benefactors in the drug import trade would have to have a monopoly on your entire government.

This is why generally most countries in the world (including America as far as I am aware) spend an awful lot of your money trying to reduce the drug trade.

What if we taxed it and invested money into rehabilitation instead of drug wars?

To tax the narcotics industry is to reduce the industry's capacity to expand and produce narcotics more effectively and deliver them to you more cheaply.

Such a one-off unofficial taxation would depend on whether or not it's an industry you want to encourage or discourage relative to all other industries and if you dislike the narcotics industry it would have been much simpler to not bother with the whole affair from the beginning.

Besides in terms of real wealth what you would gain from taxing it would be directly proportional to what you would lose with respect to the tax you could have taken from all other industries that Americans would have been spending in had they not allocated a portion of their purchasing power to narcotics.

There's not much in it really until you consider the net effect on American GDP which by definition can only suffer due to having a portion of the country falling over themselves on the way to work.

Originally Posted by Monkey.Man

Besides in terms of real wealth what you would gain from taxing it would be directly proportional to what you would lose with respect to the tax you could have taken from all other industries that Americans would have been spending in had they not allocated a portion of their purchasing power to narcotics.

Your premise is flawed. People who spend money on drugs already do so. The fact that drugs could someday be taxed (and we consequently spend less on the war on them) does not at all mean that suddenly a significant portion of the populace will stop making expenditures in other sectors. There's not likely to be any noticeable divestitures like you suggest. As a percentage of GDP, this will not even be a drop in the bucket.

Like I said. People who are going to spend money on drugs tend to do so already. There will be some minor shift in usage statistics if legalized/taxed/regulated, but hardly enough to justify a claim that "all other industries" will lose significant allocations of funds from consumers.

Originally Posted by Monkey.Man

Can I ask what anyone thinks the positive net effects on the economy of the USA may be from increasing the imports of narcotics?

I've heard one thesis that the visible presence of destitutes spurs people to work harder, because the fate of failure is tangible. A fraction is sacrificed for the majority. I guess that might work if the visibility of addicts/streetpeople was disproportionate to their actual number.

Given the choice, and being absolutely honest here, would any of you lot take drugs if they were legalised?

And I'm not just talking about heroin but cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana, LSD, etc.

And if the answer is no, why? Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Originally Posted by galexander

Given the choice, and being absolutely honest here, would any of you lot take drugs if they were legalised?

And I'm not just talking about heroin but cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana, LSD, etc.

And if the answer is no, why? Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

first of all thanks to lyne for the time as a soldier, secondly, though all goverments have problems and conspiricies and what not, does not mean that ( if i am reading this correctly) that all politions are 'sleasy'.

Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt

first of all thanks to lyne for the time as a soldier, secondly, though all goverments have problems and conspiricies and what not, does not mean that ( if i am reading this correctly) that all politions are 'sleasy'.

At least you admit that some are. The question is how many?

Is it an acceptable situation to have 'some' sleazy politicians while the rest are presumably okay?

I think not.

The question has to be raised, what precisely are the sleazy politicians up to?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by galexander

Given the choice, and being absolutely honest here, would any of you lot take drugs if they were legalised?

And I'm not just talking about heroin but cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana, LSD, etc.

And if the answer is no, why? Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

But do you take drugs yourself?

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by galexander

Given the choice, and being absolutely honest here, would any of you lot take drugs if they were legalised?

And I'm not just talking about heroin but cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana, LSD, etc.

And if the answer is no, why? Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

But do you take drugs yourself?

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by galexander

Given the choice, and being absolutely honest here, would any of you lot take drugs if they were legalised?

And I'm not just talking about heroin but cocaine, amphetamine, marijuana, LSD, etc.

And if the answer is no, why? Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

But do you take drugs yourself?

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

I didn't think I was.

You are obviously very sensitive about the matter.

Originally Posted by galexander

Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you take drugs yourself?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

I didn't think I was.

It's implicit in the comment you made (and the other comments you had been making). The word you chose, "acceptable," brings with it the connotation that you are seeking to impose your personal views of what is acceptable and not acceptable on to others.

Originally Posted by galexander

You are obviously very sensitive about the matter.

That's not obvious at all, and Paleoichneum asked a perfectly valid and rational question given your statements and comments to this thread. The fact that you have evaded his question repeatedly and didn't want to answer it doesn't mean he's being sensitive. In fact, the sensitivity seems to be yours.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you take drugs yourself?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

I didn't think I was.

It's implicit in the comment you made (and the other comments you had been making). The word you chose, "acceptable," brings with it the connotation that you are seeking to impose your personal views of what is acceptable and not acceptable on to others.

Originally Posted by galexander

You are obviously very sensitive about the matter.

That's not obvious at all, and Paleoichneum asked a perfectly valid and rational question given your statements and comments to this thread. The fact that you have evaded his question repeatedly and didn't want to answer it doesn't mean he's being sensitive. In fact, the sensitivity seems to be yours.

Excellent summation inow.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you take drugs yourself?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

I didn't think I was.

It's implicit in the comment you made (and the other comments you had been making). The word you chose, "acceptable," brings with it the connotation that you are seeking to impose your personal views of what is acceptable and not acceptable on to others.

Originally Posted by galexander

You are obviously very sensitive about the matter.

That's not obvious at all, and Paleoichneum asked a perfectly valid and rational question given your statements and comments to this thread. The fact that you have evaded his question repeatedly and didn't want to answer it doesn't mean he's being sensitive. In fact, the sensitivity seems to be yours.

Okay so Paleoichneum must think it's perfectly acceptable that kids take heroin.

That would put him in a distinct minority as far as the whole of society was concerned.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you take drugs yourself?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

I didn't think I was.

It's implicit in the comment you made (and the other comments you had been making). The word you chose, "acceptable," brings with it the connotation that you are seeking to impose your personal views of what is acceptable and not acceptable on to others.

Originally Posted by galexander

You are obviously very sensitive about the matter.

That's not obvious at all, and Paleoichneum asked a perfectly valid and rational question given your statements and comments to this thread. The fact that you have evaded his question repeatedly and didn't want to answer it doesn't mean he's being sensitive. In fact, the sensitivity seems to be yours.

Excellent summation inow.

In your opinion Paleoichneum which is the coolest drug around?

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you take drugs yourself?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

I didn't think I was.

It's implicit in the comment you made (and the other comments you had been making). The word you chose, "acceptable," brings with it the connotation that you are seeking to impose your personal views of what is acceptable and not acceptable on to others.

Originally Posted by galexander

You are obviously very sensitive about the matter.

That's not obvious at all, and Paleoichneum asked a perfectly valid and rational question given your statements and comments to this thread. The fact that you have evaded his question repeatedly and didn't want to answer it doesn't mean he's being sensitive. In fact, the sensitivity seems to be yours.

Excellent summation inow.

In your opinion Paleoichneum which is the coolest drug around?

Immaterial to the question at hand. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

Okay so Paleoichneum must think it's perfectly acceptable that kids take heroin.

That would put him in a distinct minority as far as the whole of society was concerned.

when, may I ask, did you become clairvoyant, to make assertions as to what I am thinking?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you take drugs yourself?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

I didn't think I was.

It's implicit in the comment you made (and the other comments you had been making). The word you chose, "acceptable," brings with it the connotation that you are seeking to impose your personal views of what is acceptable and not acceptable on to others.

Originally Posted by galexander

You are obviously very sensitive about the matter.

That's not obvious at all, and Paleoichneum asked a perfectly valid and rational question given your statements and comments to this thread. The fact that you have evaded his question repeatedly and didn't want to answer it doesn't mean he's being sensitive. In fact, the sensitivity seems to be yours.

Excellent summation inow.

In your opinion Paleoichneum which is the coolest drug around?

Immaterial to the question at hand. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Again I deny I have done so. I am not imposing any opinions on anyone.

My own opinions on the legal status of drugs represents the majority view of the average citizen. Your own opinions however do not.

It appears you don't have a problem with young adults taking drugs and becoming addicted to heroin.

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you take drugs yourself?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

I didn't think I was.

It's implicit in the comment you made (and the other comments you had been making). The word you chose, "acceptable," brings with it the connotation that you are seeking to impose your personal views of what is acceptable and not acceptable on to others.

Again I deny I have done so. I am not imposing any opinions on anyone.

My own opinions on the legal status of drugs represents the majority view of the average citizen. Your own opinions however do not.

It appears you don't have a problem with young adults taking drugs and becoming addicted to heroin.

As shown by inow, your line of questioning so far has been that you would. your personal aspersions on me an my opinions re: heroin are immaterial to he discussion.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you take drugs yourself?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

I didn't think I was.

It's implicit in the comment you made (and the other comments you had been making). The word you chose, "acceptable," brings with it the connotation that you are seeking to impose your personal views of what is acceptable and not acceptable on to others.

Again I deny I have done so. I am not imposing any opinions on anyone.

My own opinions on the legal status of drugs represents the majority view of the average citizen. Your own opinions however do not.

It appears you don't have a problem with young adults taking drugs and becoming addicted to heroin.

As shown by inow, your line of questioning so far has been that you would. your personal aspersions on me an my opinions re: heroin are immaterial to he discussion.

Could not follow your logic or poor grammar.

Originally Posted by galexander

Could not follow your logic or poor grammar.

Troll.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Could not follow your logic or poor grammar.

Troll.

And Troll to your good self too sir!

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by galexander

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by galexander

Do you think it is acceptable for other people to take drugs when you yourself would not?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

But do you take drugs yourself?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Immaterial to the question at hand, it doesn't matter if i do or I don't. Why do you think it is acceptable to impose your preference for not taking drug on the rest of society?

Originally Posted by galexander

I didn't think I was.

It's implicit in the comment you made (and the other comments you had been making). The word you chose, "acceptable," brings with it the connotation that you are seeking to impose your personal views of what is acceptable and not acceptable on to others.

Again I deny I have done so. I am not imposing any opinions on anyone.

My own opinions on the legal status of drugs represents the majority view of the average citizen. Your own opinions however do not.

It appears you don't have a problem with young adults taking drugs and becoming addicted to heroin.

As shown by inow, your line of questioning so far has been that you would. your personal aspersions on me an my opinions re: heroin are immaterial to he discussion.

Could not follow your logic or poor grammar.

Reposted with the two spelling error corrected and three words added for clarity.

As shown by inow, your line of questioning, so far, has been that you would impose your preference.
Your personal aspersions on me and my opinions regarding heroin are immaterial to the discussion.

I don't much care about kids taking heroine as long as it isn't forced on them. I think it forwards the cause of evolution, by weeding out the stupid.

Originally Posted by The Finger Prince

Between the poppy fields and the addict there is a lengthy chain of middlemen who profit and, legal or not, have a vested interest in continuing the traffic. The idea that legalization will reduce consumption and thence problems associated with addiction has no basis in fact.

What IS a fact is that the money, immense sums of it, is continually following a similar chain- where and to what end? At the end of it you will find your answers.

It wouldn't reduce consumption, but it would certainly lower the price consumers were willing to pay, which forces that chain to get shorter. Also, a lot of the illegal drug trade involves violently suppressing potential witnesses, either directly or by way of supporting standing gang armies that keep people afraid to talk. That part of the trade would not be greatly missed if it were to vanish.