Is buying drugs immoral?

[DemonXstreeM]

Why?

Pharmaceutical companies don't kill minorities by assaulting them with "heat", otherwise known as, "blazers", or more commonly a "piece".

I would feel worse funding scumbag bottom dwellers who are leeches on society. Don't even state they offer a valued service, because they don't.

Although, I wouldn't be surprised if someone did say that.

Your right, the Pharmaceutical companies only help to oppress an entire nation and keep them in the pockets of the government and the banks.

 

[TheodoreRoosevelt]

what kind of evidence do you need for fact? I've never been below the border nor to afghanistan, but there's very little doubt/disagreement on who is running what (warlords controlling opium territories in afghanistan and the army+both sides of the rebels within colombia).

Anything besides "I think". No one here has posted anything that would say drugs are coming from terrorist groups. I mean, no one has posted any articles, any reports, anything. The only thing people have said so far is "I think .... ". WHY does everyone think drugs may come from terrorist organizations?

The only reason I have such suspicions is because I know the Viet Cong was involved in the heroin trade during the Vietnam era, and wondering if something similar was going on today.

If warlords and gangs are in control of the drug trade, if crime families (Five Families, Gambino, etc) are behind it, I don't care. But I mean if groups that support terrorism, or communists, are financing or profiting from the drug trade then I have a serious problem. I don't care if drug gangs are fighing eachother, but I would have a problem if, say, Hizbollah was getting money.

The thing, is that many terrorist-supporting countries like Iran, China, Syria, et cetera, are extremely anti-drug. I know Iran has very serious laws against drugs, but they also give millions to Hizbollah. I would think that many of these countries would not be happy if the terrorist groups they supported were also behind the drug trade. I know Iran has one of the worst opiate problems in the world - I don't think they'd be too happy if the terrorist groups they funded were partially responsible for this.

As for oil, our money isn't going to terrorists, to put it shortly. I know what you meant by your extension argument, but to be clear we aren't supporting terrorists with oil money. Buying oil is actually a great thing to do, and a great market to support. Just to be clear, I know I was a little vague there. Youre right that it would be illogical to think that it's okay to buy oil if I thought a larger portion was good even if some went to terrorists, but that's not the case.

America and other prohibitionist countries deserve nothing less than to pay the price for their failed war on some drugs.

No one deserves to die simply because of their opinion. The idea that people should die simply because you can't get your junky fix is beyond fucked up. Rot in hell, I knew people involved in 9/11 and to think they deserved it is too fucked up. Not everyone killed in Iraq and 9/11 believed in drug illegalization.

I don't believe that much drug money goes into the hands of Al-Qaida. Mostly it seems to be grown by dirt poor farmers trying to get ahead, purchased by various traders and them moved out of the country to be processed into heroin.

Well, I mean if this is the case, that's fine with me then. Nice link, but it only says about opium and heroin production, it doesn't say who is financing the operations.

Your right, the Pharmaceutical companies only help to oppress an entire nation and keep them in the pockets of the government and the banks.

Sure they do, and UFO's come by my house every Sunday 8)

 

[bingalpaws]

tr - I agree, nobody deserves to die for having been misinformed, that's quite friggin overboard lol!

You want more than "I think/I heard", but the problem is that, given I haven't been there, I cannot corroborate stories, however I guess that was implied that I had read it when I posted it... if you're around ditm enough you'd see but I'll grab a couple articles anyways (only on farc just to illustrate what I had not supported before, but articles and as much 'facts' as are available will be anywhere):
<general wikis with info>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_drug_trade_in_Colombia#Influence_in_the_armed_conflict (actually that whole page is interesting)

<from wiki's page on farc, appropriate references are there>
"The FARC is believed to have ties to narcotics traffickers, principally through the provision of armed protection and a form of "taxation" over drugs crops and their profits. During the mid- to late-1990s, several drugwar analysts have stated that the FARC would have become increasingly involved in the drug trade, controlling farming, production and exportation of cocaine in those areas of the country under their influence. This claim is also supported by U.S. and Colombian authorities.

Brazilian druglord Fernandinho Beira-Mar was captured in Colombia on April 20, 2001 while in the company of FARC-EP guerrillas. Colombian and Brazilian authorities have claimed that this constitutes proof of further cooperation between the FARC-EP and the druglord based on the exchange of weapons for cocaine.[44][45][46] Fernandinho himself and the FARC-EP have denied this. FARC itself has claimed that in their areas of influence the growth of coca plants by farmers would be taxed on the same basis as any other crop, though there would be higher cash profits stemming from coca production and exportation."

<random>
"According to the AP news agency, on August 18, 2004, a Colombian arms broker, Carlos Gamarra Murillo, arrested on April 1, 2004 in Tampa, Florida, USA, was charged with attempting to buy $4 million in rocket launchers, machine guns, and other heavy weapons and ammunition for the FARC, which would have been paid for with 2 tons of cocaine (worth 60% of the total amount, according to investigators) and cash."

(also, simply searching 'cocaine farc' through bl will give a plethora of articles on the subject. I don't know if you'll find a source saying a really concrete % of the coca trade they control, or of specific values like the farc's annual income, because such figures are likely tough and/or impossible to obtain, but the general picture is very clear)

 

[phr]

AFAIK, little heroin is actually produced within afghanistan. Opium comes out of there, is moved out to far-eastern asia where the apparatus is in place for production, and then on to us.

That seems to be changing. More and more heroin processing labs are being discovered in Afghanistan.

 

[chicpoena]

That seems to be changing. More and more heroin processing labs are being discovered in Afghanistan.

Yeah it's quite the coincidence 8) that after the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan heroin production skyrocketed. Gee, I wonder if the CIA has anything to do with it

 

[TheodoreRoosevelt]

Okay, so we can clearly say that cocaine is funding terrorist groups, right? To those who use coke, what do you think about your money funding terrorist organizations that kill hundreds of people in singular attacks regularly?

That still kinda leaves the whole elephant in the room about the heroin trade. I mean, it would be pretty easy to think that there are ties between heroin and islamic terrorist groups. But then, given their ultra-social-conservative status, maybe they wouldn't be behind such groups. I mean the most anti-drug policies in the world usually are from the most ultra-islamic countries like Malaysia.

Yeah it's quite the coincidence that after the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan heroin production skyrocketed. Gee, I wonder if the CIA has anything to do with it

We go cookoo for cocoa puffs!

 

[bingalpaws]

why would one feel remorseful for purchasing cocaine, even if it funds farc, knowing that the only reason cocaine provides those funds is because of their inflated values - which are directly related to prohibition? People will buy no matter what, even if some stopped based on principle, so the end result is large cash values going to farc - that cannot be changed by people trying to stop buying (since not enough people ever would stop), it can only be changed by ending prohibition (at which point coca crops would be an average commodity crop and wouldn't offer such value to those around it).

 

[bingalpaws]

Yeah it's quite the coincidence 8) that after the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan heroin production skyrocketed. Gee, I wonder if the CIA has anything to do with it

it could just as easily be terrorist groups wanting more funds, and therefore pushing more production

 

[TheodoreRoosevelt]

Or, what if these terrorist groups are behind illegalization and prohibition, to keep an industry illegal and profitable. You know, gangsters back in "Prohibition" fought tooth and nail to keep alcohol illegal and bootlegging profitable.

Afterwards they switch to heroin and cocaine distribution, with the rise of Luciano. A lot of powerful people want drugs to stay illegal...

why would one feel remorseful for purchasing cocaine, even if it funds farc,

Um... maybe because they are responsible for killing thousands of people in the most inhumane ways? IEDs that accidentally trap debris over innocent farmers and make them starve and suffocate over weeks. School bombings that kill hundreds in a single blast. Tying up 28 farmers by foot and gagging them, and then mowing them down with automatic rifle fire because of suspicions of their political sympathies.

Sorry, I have a very serious problem giving a single penny to such groups.

Think of it this way: Would you continue to buy drugs if, say, the Republican Party was profiting (or if your a conservative the Democrat party, or whatever, et cetera, et cetera - basically the party you dislike)?

I mean I'm sure half of Bluelight would turn sober overnight if the Republican party was profiting from drugs lol. I know I sure as hell would stop using drugs if the Democrats profited from it.

edit: not trying to say certain parties are terrorists or whatever. I'm just saying I wouldn't send a penny towards an organization I basically did not support. And I definitely wouldn't support a terrorist organization. And buying shit means you support them, whether you like it or not.

 

[bingalpaws]

- of course terrorist groups, farmers of illicit drugs, traffickers, all the way down to corner dealers, want the trade kept illegal, otherwise they all need new jobs in a new industry!

- I cannot respond to what you quoted of mine, as you took a mid-sentence quote which mischaracterizes the statement. If you quoted the entire sentence it would've been the reply to what you had written.

- "I'm just saying I wouldn't send a penny towards an organization I basically did not support. "
sorry but I'm calling BS on that one man. You don't buy gas? You verify each product you buy was from a safe working environment with fair wages? You don't pay taxes (or you basically do support the current government?)? I could go on and on but your statement is almost certainly a lie.

 

[brainslookfunny]

The Republican party DOES profit from drug sales. Profit may not be the best word, but they are certainly supported by it. They fight the drug war and it gives them jobs. They can spout a lot of morally superior claims but at the end of the day fighting the drugs helps put food on the table. If the drug war ended, all the people fighting it would have to get a different job. The real irony is how many Republicans use drugs, yet support the drug war! One of many stunning hypocrasies going on.

 

[recons]

The CIA seems to go after the high profit cocaine and heroin.

 

[bingalpaws]

theodore - I was just thinking more along those lines regarding supporting farc/taliban/etc by purchasing drugs. Let's think of a hypothetical though, let's just say that, somehow, traffickers got their product at the border from thin air. There was source country that produced and processed the product, instead of meeting colombians at the docks your product just appeared out of thin air.

That *still* would not change the fact that, by buying your drugs as a consumer, you're giving money into the illicit drug world. Because this world is illicit it has to solve its own problems (read: typically violence), and furthermore people in this industry are walking targets to get robbed since they cannot turn to the police.

In this hypothetical, you're certainly not funding any organizations from other countries you may be against, but you are still giving money to an illicit market, the drug market, which inherently has negative externalities to society. But these are only present because of prohibition. So, do you stop buying drugs still? I guess I'm thinking this example helps because it removes farc/taliban/etc from the picture and shows that no matter what, buying a product from an illicit market will fund people who break the law and hurt others, that's how illicit markets go. So the extension of your reasoning really means you wouldn't feel morally right buying drugs at all until they were fully legalized (and you agreed with the market still, because even licit markets can be immoral and unethical by one's standards)

The Republican party DOES profit from drug sales. Profit may not be the best word, but they are certainly supported by it. They fight the drug war and it gives them jobs. They can spout a lot of morally superior claims but at the end of the day fighting the drugs helps put food on the table. If the drug war ended, all the people fighting it would have to get a different job. The real irony is how many Republicans use drugs, yet support the drug war! One of many stunning hypocrasies going on.

I'm sorry but I had no idea that the democratic party was against the drug war


And to everyone dropping the "cia deals drugs" comments in, is there anything new to substantiate such claims or is our last tangible evidence of this back from the iran contra affair? I'm not saying I believe one way or another, but I know which way I lean, and a lot of those comments just seem really baseless to me, curious what the reasoning behind them is (unless it's just "government = crooked").

 

[burn out]

i have to say for the most part yes. i mean youre giving large sums of money to an immoral organization for a product that in the end is most likely only hurting yourself and youre doing it only for your short term selfish pleasure. seems pretty immoral when you think about how many lives that money could save if you somehow got into the hands of starving children around the world. of course you could argue that buying expensive cars, lots of jewelry, enormous tv sets, etc is also immoral because you don't really need that stuff and there are so many people who need that money so badly. drugs are even worse though because they tend to get used up so fast, are supplied illegally and are generally bad for you. so yes it's immoral for the most part.

 

[recons]

And to everyone dropping the "cia deals drugs" comments in, is there anything new to substantiate such claims or is our last tangible evidence of this back from the iran contra affair? I'm not saying I believe one way or another, but I know which way I lean, and a lot of those comments just seem really baseless to me, curious what the reasoning behind them is (unless it's just "government = crooked").

recent stuff.
http://www.narconews.com/Issue49/article2989.html

plus the fact that gary webb shot himself twice in the head...

 

[brainslookfunny]

I'm sorry but I had no idea that the democratic party was against the drug war

Please show me where I said democrats are against the drug war.

Think of it this way: Would you continue to buy drugs if, say, the Republican Party was profiting (or if your a conservative the Democrat party, or whatever, et cetera, et cetera - basically the party you dislike)?

He asked what if we knew Republicans benefited from the drug war. All I'm saying is, it does! Just like the democratic party, and just like any party that chooses to fight an endless battle, while supporting the battle through prohibition.

And just so you know, I am not a democrat / republican, and I am neither pro or anti of these groups. I am pro-reason, and I'll take it where I can find it.

 

[bingalpaws]

Please show me where I said democrats are against the drug war.

I'm not gonna look because surely you didn't say that, but the way your post read it specified republicans instead of just saying politicians, that's a fail on reading comprehension for me if you had reason to single out republicans

 

[bingalpaws]

recent stuff.
http://www.narconews.com/Issue49/article2989.html

plus the fact that gary webb shot himself twice in the head...

I'll get back on that, the article's a lil long for me to get through right now.

(heh, finally figured out who ya were from that avatar )

 

[brainslookfunny]

I gotcha. Nope, not trying to single out anybody

 

[sylvan Wanderer]

TR, you seem to hate bullshit, as I do myself. Can you honestly say you haven't read or heard about how the Taliban and Northern Alliance both have their hand in the drug trade? Several articles are written about it every year.

To get to the crux of the question a simple fact has to be said: You have no idea if the heroin you buy on the street is from terrorists or from businesses men. Or perhaps both at some step along the way. You may or may not be giving two pennies to terrorists when you buy drugs. You do, however, feed into the demand for drugs which encourages terrorists to seek out the drug trade to fund themselves and raising the possibility you would be funding them. Nevermind the previous point that drug money feeds poor people not just buys guns and yachts.

Is buying drugs immoral [specifically those suspected of funding terrorism]? That's a question each person has to answer themselves.