View Full Version : Chinese Drug War
In what is becoming a macabre annual ritual, the Chinese government used the United Nations' International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Drug Trafficking to dramatize its renewed vigor in the endless war by executing 59 convicted drug traffickers (http://www.drcnet.org/wol/143.html#chinakillings and http://www.drcnet.org/wol/143.html#editorial). Chinese authorities also staged pyrotechnic spectacles, exploding and burning bales of confiscated drugs before stadiums full of onlookers and broadcasting the events on the state-owned television networks.
* http://www.drcnet.org ... From The Week Online, #192, 6/29/2001
I present this for two groups of people: those who appreciate capital punishment, and those who oppose drugs. 1997 saw a federal effort to include drug trafficking as a capital offense; is this really where we want to go? Stadia full of people, explosions and lights; a celebration of death? The UN apparently loves this. From a David Borden editorial in the same issue of WOL:
Drugs and the death penalty have been a recurring topic lately: A week and a half ago, Juan Raul Garza was executed for murders committed in the course of running a marijuana trafficking enterprise; it was the second federal execution since the early 1960s and the first related to drug enforcement ever. Wasting no time, federal prosecutors quickly announced their intention to seek the death penalty against seven other Texan drug defendants.
Across the world, the government of the largest nation on Earth has even less patience. Three days ago, marking the United Nation's International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Drug Trafficking, the Chinese government executed 59 drug traffickers in a ritual played out year after year with clock-like predictability.
At least they say they were drug traffickers. But even here in the US, with a death penalty appeals process that can stretch over decades, we've found time after time that innocent death row inmates will reach the brink of execution before their innocence is demonstrated. The logical conclusion is that it is overwhelmingly likely that innocents have been put to death.
How much more is this the case in China, where conviction and execution can be a summary affair subject to a totalitarian bureaucrat's need to fill a quota? And of the "guilty," many, according to a report by Amnesty International, are mere possessors or low-level operators, not the major traffickers the government makes them out to be. Logical conclusions, leaps, and stretches aside, Borden has taken no more liberty with the China situation than is taken in any other political affair. I note this because Americans tend to overlook human rights violations where drugs are the issue.
What fries me, personally, is that the strategy has no real effect. Sure, China's got a billion-plus people to deal with, but we've seen one drug-related death-sentence ever (Juan Garza), and that was because he committed murders in the process. Obviously, the rounding up of users and traffickers for this annual slaughter isn't working. I base this, in part, on the high-grade Chinese white opium I encountered last weekend: if I can get Chinese opium resin when I'm not even looking for it--that is, if it can fall out of the sky at high quality and low price--then the drug war isn't working on either side of the Atlantic.
Which means that even the faux justifications of mass murder don't hold true. Sure, it's a compelling desire to kill someone for doing something you don't like, but here's a reminder of what's at stake for getting high: your life at the hands of the state.
So between trying to fool two of the world's most powerful governments, we see the necessity of a black market structure resolving. Hello? It's the black market: does anyone wonder where drug-crime comes from? On the operative end it's a natural conclusion: any slip-up can cost you your life; any person causing that slip up can cause your subsequent death in this arena. It's an environment that encourages lethal force.
So you have shattered lives, murdered drug traffickers, and a government after the heads of the rest. No reduction in traffick, no reduction in black-market profits, and no reduction in consumption demand.
It's obvious that the culture of death isn't having its desired effect. Is mass public execution really an acceptable answer? Check that: Is mass public execution celebrating the United Nations really an acceptable answer?
What is the ethic of mass murder?
It as bad enough when the Israelis started pulling their punches to placate world opinion instead of just kicking ass, but now the Chinese are getting on the bandwagon. I guess they really want to become a member of the WTO and to get the Olympic thing.
It wasn't that many years ago when the users, after being given a reasonable time to mend their ways, as well as the dealers were being executed.
I just don't know what this world is coming to.
I suppose there's that. I have no doubt whatsoever in the Chinese difficulty to acquit the innocent, but a finite system necessitates that some of them are actually guilty. Er .... It's one of those kinds of days.
But did you notice? I said Atlantic? Ah! The shame, the shame! Maybe I should execute that brain cell ;) (Well, you know, I'm a vocal pothead, so it's not like I can't.)
But never let it be said that you haven't a point, sir.
("No, Officer ... I'm executing fifty-nine brain cells in protest of Chinese human rights violations. Er ... yeah.") :D
I wanted to throw this one in, just because it's halfway relevant:
BEIJING (AP) - China executed more people in the last three months than the rest of the world did in the past three years - 1,781 people put to death in a government campaign against crime, Amnesty International said Friday. Did they all get fireworks on TV? ;)
That works out to a bit over 500 a month (sorry, not all my fingers and toes are awake yet) in a population of about a billion - Gee, hey ... I'd say that's a pretty small percentage. I'd be willing to say too that in the United States alone doctors kill more patients per month - and there's seldom retribution.
Let's get real! I know how you feel about executions etc. from some of your posts; but isn't this carrying it a bit far? And bringing Amnesty International into the bit on top of it!
A small percentage? A small percentage?
You know, some of those people are me. Their crimes include possessing marijuana, opium resin, or psilocybin. Their crimes include pacifism, democracy, and Liberty. Their crimes are rhetoric, and often unproven. That seems the equivalent of what we do in this country: kill someone for drug possession (Diallo, Dorismond, Paz) while actually having pursued the wrong person. As Giuliani noted in the Dorismond murder: He was a career criminal, anyway, and the city was better off with him dead, regardless of whether he was guillty of anything at the time of his murder or not: Mr Dorismond's career of crime consisted entirely of one uncharged shoplifting arrest at age 13. Mr Dorismond was 26 when he was murdered.
41 rounds into Diallo? Should I not worry when the police discharge 41 rounds into an innocent man's body (while the target drug-dealer slips out the back door of the next house over) because those 41 rounds are "a small percentage" of the available ammunition supply? After all, there's at least a billion rounds of ammunition in this country, so 41 isn't that bad a number ...
Technically, sir, I'm hoping I've missed a truckload of sarcasm. I can't understand the notion that someone forfeits their human rights by being born in a place where the government thinks there's already too many people.
I mean, that wicked, wicked person: they have so much executive control over their own birth--why can they not see to it that they're born where there's nobody already?
And you know, Amnesty International generally bugs me, and this is based on the A.I. movement in my own high school ten years ago. Everybody missed it in this country when China took a swing at our own human rights difficulties last year. But it's also part of the reason why the UN drug and human rights councils saw fit to reject the United States. Sure, we're technically a better place for your human rights than China or Cameroon or Sudan. But we apparently needed reminding. The nation didn't blink when China aimed at our campaign against African and Hispanic ethnicities in this country. In fact, the only attention it drew around Seattle were a couple of letters to the editor of local papers decrying the newspaper for being so irresponsible as to print the kind of trash the Associated Press is known for: lies, lies, lies.
You know, AP is political, but come on ... it's not that bad. The nation is just in denial.
Just because things aren't "perfect" in the world doesn't mean we shouldn't at least give improvement a shot.
When laws don't make victims out of people; when laws don't encourage Liberty to seek the black market to survive; when laws protect both society and the individual concurrently--then we can give some thought to whether or not killing lawbreakers is right. In the meantime, and especially under a regime like China, I can guarantee you that these executed persons didn't even have the chance they have in the US to avoid their penalty.
For instance Tiananmen: a few thousand? That's not bad in a nation of a billion. So we shouldn't be upset? I listened to an American reporter being beaten by Chinese authorities (his celphone didn't shut off when they knocked it out of his hand; Dan rather sat there, saying, "Bob? Bob, are you there? Bob, we seem to have lost you ... can you hear me, Bob?" We heard about a minute of it before the network cut the feed to move on to more spectacular happenings.)
I'll stop now ... truly, I hope I'm just missing some sarcasm. Of course, I slept until 2:00 today, so it's entirely possible my brain isn't going to be online until about 4:00.
You had to make me do it (dig out my trusty old TI-35 Plus)!
Estimated population of China.: 1,300,000,000
Average executed per year....: ..............583.7
Percentage executed per year: .................0.000000004
If you don't consider that 'small', I'd hate to see what you consider 'large'.
Now regarding medical 'mistakes'
In an effort to prevent some of the estimated 44,000 deaths in the U.S. attributed annually to medical mistakes, the Bush administration has proposed the creation of a centralized Internet database to track mistakes made by hospitals and doctors.
Estimated population in the US.: ..275,000,000
Patients killed per yr. by dr/hosp: ........44,000
Percentage killed per year........: ................0.016
Gee, like I think I did make a point ... even if you felt it to be a bit sarcastic ... that is difficult to refute. And, I am sorry that the drug/execution tye-in is such a sensitive subject with you that it caused you to go into a virtual tirade; but hey, whatever grabs you.
Thanx for the fun.:D
(Damn, it was a pain lining up those numbers)
Medicine is largely elective by the patient: one can refuse treatment for a perceived problem. One knows the doctors are human. One knows that humans are imperfect. These things happen, and should happen less. Medicine is designed to save the patient, and whether incompetence or a completely unpredictable result kills a patient doesn't change this fact.
Executions are designed to kill people. The law, on behalf of the people it represents, elects to warrant murder in retribution.
Furthermore, I doubt the severity and guilt across the board. Not that they just executed innocent people. But this is over the top. Murder is becoming a solution to social ills.
And that's what it's about. I'm glad murder is as moral as anaphylactic shock.
You really are dancing on your tippy toes taking that line of reasoning, Tiassa.
Yes, executions are intended to kill people; but medical practice is intended to save them, not kill them ... for whatever reason. As to how many of those executed were innocent, I have no idea. But I'd be willing to bet that percentage-wise, it was far, far fewer than those who were truely sick and in need of medical treatment.
I'm easy (or so I've been told). I'll even accept that medical treatment is 'largely' elective ... but only if you accept that drug use, and definitely the selling of drugs, is totally elective. Is it a deal, Tiassa?
You really are dancing on your tippy toes taking that line of reasoning, Tiassa.Not as much as demonstrating the wrongness of killing with a spectacular Murder Extravaganza. Aside from being convenient and fulfilling a human sense of "eye for an eye" bloodlust, I don't see what executing anyone does.
Capital punishment ....
* Does not reduce the crime rate: Were this true, well, it would be a lot less violent a society.
* Is still homicide: As I noted, how better to demonstrate the wrongness of murder than to kill someone?
* Costs more than life in prison: There are two things we can do to change this situation--first, we can reduce the quality of life in prisons, thus reinforcing the notion that rehabilitation is too expensive, and satisfying a social trend of viewing the worst in people: he's committed a crime, there must be no hope, so let us lock this person away and never figure out why what happened happened so that we can stop it from happening again. It is enough to make this person disappear and never think about reducing these criminal aberrations. Secondly, we can summarily execute people upon conviction: appeals are way too expensive in society, right? So let's just skip that whole appeal process, since it's just giving these horrible people too many chances to make excuses, and never mind that a majority of death row inmates eventually have their sentences overturned for procedural impropriety, such as relevant evidence withheld from the jury.
Now, to consider things realistically: We, as a society, have chosen that murdering a person is an appropriate criminal punishment. A plethora of social turmoils plague the practice, from racism to evidentiary disputes; one must remember that, in this country, a jury may not have seen critical evidence: a judge is allowed to toss out whatever is deemed irrelevant; actual determination of relevance is left to an imperfect human being subject to prejudices both subtle and blatant. Even Mr McVeigh's execution suffered evidentiary difficulties; had we not the convicted's essential confession, it is likely that he would be alive right now and we would still be slogging through it in court. There's a capital punishment moratorium in Illinois because we, the alleged greatest nation in the world, can't figure out our asses from a hole in the ground when it comes to convicting and executing people.
As regards Chinese drug traffickers: Consider the US: until Apprendi v. New Jersey, anyone who used drugs could be convicted as a trafficker. Essentially, laws stated that if you had drugs in separate containers, you are trafficking. Imagine I'm arrested with a little over a gram of marijuana: I have a bud in my pocket and one in the glass bowl. In addition to possession and intent to use, if I am convicted of possessing the drugs in two separate containers (bag in my pocket, and also the glass pipe) by a jury, I am instantly convicted by the law of a crime the jury was not allowed to consider: intent to distribute. One cannot argue against the charge because it is not charged.
Now, consider China, whose best effort to deal with free speech is to kill 'em all. Now they're executing "traffickers", and apparently all high-level. These must be importers, because, as I mentioned not too many posts ago, Chinese white opium fell out of the sky at wonderful quality and beautiful price. It appears that the capital solution to the Chinese trafficking problem either A) isn't working, or B) isn't netting high-level dealers. At this point, you're executing people for using, or for selling a dime bag to their friend. Perhaps the scary spectre of "drugs" as created by world governments is enough to convince a person that we need to murder these fairly common users. Whatever the case, I don't see the need for executing anyone for using drugs, and especially when more dangerous human choices are not only allowed, but endorsed by the government.
Chinese murders give the appearance of population control in the guise of criminal policy. I suppose it's worth it for the world to sit down and argue again over what, exactly, is a human right. But if we throw out enough of them, we'll essentially be admitting the failure of society.
If we'd rather be killing people for doing things we don't like, we should just sack society, declare anarchy, and start shooting.
I'm easy (or so I've been told). I'll even accept that medical treatment is 'largely' elective ... but only if you accept that drug use, and definitely the selling of drugs, is totally elective. Is it a deal, Tiassa?Of course the using and selling of drugs is elective. Now, can you tell me why? Bet not.
Poverty? Try again. If you blame poverty on drugs, you're ignoring the factors that compel drug use.
Crime? Ha. History demonstrates that substance prohibition of this nature creates crime.
Health? Well, let's get some accurate data for once, instead of making that kind of research illegal. In addition I wish to counteract an argument raised during the tobacco debates: All these smokers going to need health care and we have to pay for it .... Right. Now then, I agree. So, let's eradicate cocaine (still used in medicine for lack of any synthetic replacement), heroin (same, and most synthetic opiates just don't cut it, but that's my experiential opinion), and methamphetamine (you'll have to eradicate diesel, kerosene, or, if one is sensible, cold medicine). Or, let's just let the users die off of whatever damage their use brings. While we're at it, we can let the drinkers' livers explode, sue all of the non-carpoolers to pay for nonsmokers' cancers, and sack Kraft Foods for reducing the quality of our food supply with synthetics like partially hydrogenated oils.
By controlling a problem with Death, do we not make Death an acceptable solution?
The only thing we get from executing anyone is satisfaction of bloodlust; congratulations, we are officially the equal of the executed convict.
Think about this: United States Marines, patrolling inside the United States' borders, shoot and kill an American citizen while on a listening/reconnaisance assignment in Texas. Esquivel Hernandez, American citizen, age 15, was shot in the back of the head by the USMC. Murdered. Why? They thought he was a drug trafficker. So they shot him.
I guess that saves us the expedience of a trial, eh? After all, the execution's what's important; let's cut out the details and just focus on what's really, really important.
Incidentally, young Mr Hernandez was drug-free, and tending the family sheep when he was murdered.
But it's important enough to kill people over; we can forgive someone for killing the wrong person. (Dorismond, Paz, Diallo ....)
Think about this: if the GOP sponsors had their way in 1997, 2 ounces of marijuana would be enough to sentence someone to death.
In other places around the world, your words are enough to sentence you to death. I take it, then, that Mr Rushdie shouldn't have written that book, since he knew the nature of Khomeni's Islam? How about Ken-Saro Wiwa? He sure did enjoy the freedoms of that British Commonwealth.
Murder is an appropriate response for murder? How about child rape? Marijuana? A four-hundred page work of fiction?
Hello? State-sanctioned murder is still murder. I think war is that stupid too. What's the solution? Generally speaking, learn how to avoid it. Can we educate the culture out of violence? Can we educate the culture against the murders it commits, say, for drug-sales turf? Can we educate the culture against stupid crimes of passion (where's the death sentence)? What about economy? Will bad economic conditions lead to a black market to bolster the community's economic status? There's a lot we can do to reduce the things that plague our societies. We can start with a reduction or elimination of state-sanctioned penal murder.
Or so says my couple of pennies.
Okay, I'll play along for the fun of it.
It's a human matter
It most certainly is. The rest of the species that kill their own do it matter of factly, without a whole bunch of wailing and gnashing of teeth about justifying what they're doing.
Does not reduce the crime rate: Were this true, well, it would be a lot less violent a society.
Mainly because: 1) It is not certain; and 2) It is delayed.
Is still homicide.
Call it what you want, murder, execution, assassination, revenge, etc. It is still killing. Something that our species is very good at and delights in.
Costs more than life in prison.
Only because of the ridiculously drawn out process. A .38 caliber bullet costs approx. $.10 (if it's a reload); a jury of twelve, even for a week @$100/day would cost no more than $6,000; The trial cost (judge and stenographer) should cost no more than another $4,000. Lets say a total of $12,000, allowing for other costs (like feeding, housing, etc. the prisoner during the trial). I do think it's a bit cheaper than fifty years (for a 20 yr.old) of incarceration. Oh, and yes, the appeal process is damned expensive.
Of course the using and selling of drugs is elective. Now, can you tell me why?
Since there isn't a neutral referee present, no betting - But, simple enough to answer: That's the nature of the beast! Throughout history, to the best of my knowedge, our species has used mind altering drugs in one form or another and for a whole bunch of different reasons - But, we have always used them. Maybe because we're so damned curious. I know that it was my reason ... but then I was lucky and didn't get nailed.
As for the rest of what you had to say: You've said it before ... and before ... and before ... so there's not much reason to address it. Although I must say, unless I missed a previous reference, this is the first time you've used the poor shephard boy in your rant. Oh, there is a good possibility that he was armed and, I'm quite sure NOT shot in the back of the head. But then, a little excess always helps make the point.
Oh well, I think that's it for now. Sorry for not addressing every point in minute detail as you're so fond of doing, particularly when you're doing the religious argument (debate?) bit.
Take care :o:rolleyes: ;)
Oh, just in case you're wondering, Tiassa: I did not forget the legal fees. I just figured that in a more perfect legal system all that lawyers would be needed for would be to draw up wills.
Though, come to think of it, they do a pretty bad job at that too most of the time. But what the hell, how much damage can they do with a will? And they have to survive too.
From the tone of it I'm not seeing a whole lot of reasons to murder someone, except that you seem to think that society has always done it, has always done it well, and, well, we should be ashamed that we don't do it as well as the other species that kill their own arbitrarily.
So that's it: as long as it's good enough for the rats, it's good enough for humanity? What is "civilization", then? What is "society"? Just a social convention whereby we make it easier to kill our enemies?
Furthermore, yes, Esquivel Hernandez was armed, with a .22 rifle.
* What were the Marines doing performing reconnaisance against American citizens inside American borders? Is this "legal"? (How does this fit within the USMC charter?)
* The Second Amendment, as it is currently interpreted, indicates that carrying a weapon in the middle of nowhere is not illegal.
* The Marines, who felt they were under attack, were not familiar with the shepherd custom of discharging the rifle at irregular intervals to scare away predators. To this, I might comment, That's some nice operational preparation, boys.
* It is only in a culture where the state sanctions murder that we can possibly shoot first and ask questions later. To be specific: We shoot first, and find out that the suspect is not guilty later? Sounds to me like murder. But if it's in the name of Law Enforcement?
One cannot establish that Esquivel Hernandez was behaving in violation of the law. In fact, one can definitely establish that he was behaving within the law. The dispensation against charging the shooters with murder (and therefore making them subject to the death penalty) is apparently derived from the special circumstances of a combat situation. Okay ... against your own citizens without proof of a crime? Oh, that's right. Even though we fight abroad to ensure our freedom, we fight at home to destroy it.
I've mentioned Hernandez many times over the many months since his murder.
But, frankly, the need to have state sanction to commit murder resembles, by your explanations, mere bloodlust. We like killing people, and even though we say it's wrong, we're going to invent as many rhetorical conditions as we can to get around that perception of wrongness.
And that's a sad state for an allegedly free country.
The other thing that intrigues me is your protestations against due process. Given the number of death sentences overturned for bad evidentiary procedures, I wonder why you're so anxious to suspend due process and get on with the killing.
Is it that important to feel good about endorsing murder? Why not just admit that the neurosis of endorsing murder is unnecessary, and stop endorsing murder? And on that note, I hold myself answered: Because our entertainment and satisfaction is more important than human life.
Tiassa, you are really something else!
I started to address your post point by point, and then decided, 'Oh hell, it isn't worth the effort.'
Anyone who comes up with the inane bit of it being a shepherd's custom to discharge a .... .22 ... ???? ... at irregular intervals to scare off predators ??? Jackrabbits ??? in daylight no less !!!! and doesn't realize that the Mexican government might not appreciate Marines carrying out a drug recon mission (or training) on it's soil, is pretty far out of it.
No wonder you enjoy hassling Loony ... sorry, Sir.Loone ... as much as you do ... you're both in just about the same league.
Oh, did you check to find out if the little darling with the .22 was shot in the back of the head? Or did you check and decide to keep mum about it? Hell, never let facts stand in the way of a great emotion grabbing construct.
After all, Loone seems to like military metaphors, and you seem to like the idea of killing people to feel better.
So, niceties aside ... you can have your way on the details; yes I had a few of them wrong. Here's your link: http://www.metrotimes.com/border.html
So Hernandez was 18 ... ooh ... that makes him much more deserving of his death. :rolleyes: Oh, and it was goats. Repugnant human being ... :rolleyes:
When will murder stop being a solution?
And here's one for you, while you're at it: http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-050es.html
When death is the solution, nobody is safe. America, China? What's the difference? Tell me, Chagur, do you believe everything your government tells you?
And what does the Mexican government have to do with anything? Hernandez was a US citizen on American soil.
Might I suggest that you go back and edit all your previous posts re. the poor little darling and the big, bad Marine so that some misinformed creature doesn't get the crap beat out of him in a bar by laying the junk you've been putting out on some big, bad Marine who is committed to protecting your right to say the foolishness that you're so prone to post?
Re. the Mexican government:
THEY ... JUST ... MIGHT ... GET ... UPSET ... IF ... A ... MARINE ... RECON ... WERE ... TO ... BE ... CONDUCTED ... ON ... THEIR ... SIDE ... OF ... THE ... BORDER ... !!!
Is that loud and clear enough for you to understand?
Oh, and after you finish editing your previous posts why don't you see if you can find Loony so the two of you can sit around and circle-jerk while deciding how many angels can sit on each of your heads?
Bitter beer face? Cut down on your intake, Chagur.
Would you like to apologize to the innocent people you seem to think so deserved to die?
Didn't think so. Please get either a clue or perhaps even the slightest degree of human empathy. Those Marines, those laws, and all of those stupid murders of people are done, allegedly, for their and our benefit.
Oh, was the shooter's hair caramel instead of brown? It doesn't change the fact that he's a murderer, sanctioned by his government. You're hiding in the detail since you have no principle to stand on.
I mean, what is it that makes you so desperate to kill that you'll encourage governments to do so?
Oh, and after you finish editing your previous posts why don't you see if you can find Loony so the two of you can sit around and circle-jerk while deciding how many angels can sit on each of your heads?Ah, Chaggy, cheer up. After all, while we're busy doing that, you can join the Marine Corps or your local PD and kill whomever the hell you feel like. All you have to say is that you were scared.
In the meantime, I would prefer that you establish that there is a reason for murder? Aside from the fact that it gets you off?
Let me know when you do that; I'm sure it'll take you the rest of your life. Because if murder is wrong, no quantity of medals will change that, and no amount of apoplectic screaming by halfwit attorneys can change that. I know it upsets you, Chagur, but that's one of the things about bloodlust: it cuts down your options on dealing with your own rage.
Do me a favor: drink yourself into a stupor tonight; for my benefit, you'll be incapacitated and unable to wish death on people; for your own benefit, you can dream about killing anyone you want.
So answer me this: What is the difference between ....
* shooting an innocent man in the chest because he won't sell you any marijuana because he doesn't have any ...?
* executing fifty-nine persons with pomp and bombast to honor peace ...?
* killing untold scores of people, including women and children, mustard-gassing localities in order to eventually seize the land and build a dam on a nearby river ...?
Tell you what, I'll even give you an answer, but it's not the only one: The numbers. That's a difference. 1 person, 59 people, hundreds of people? Sure, there's different numbers involved there. But that's not a big deal to a killer like you, is it?
Chagur, what fries me is that you have made little or no comment regarding the severity of crime warranting murder, nor of the validity of guilt of the executed. You give every appearance of someone who is frustrated that you can't kill the people you don't like, and cheers on governments whenever they do.
Oh, and don't be such a presumptuous bitch. That kind of idiocy is best left for Loone and Lawdog.
I see you've offered nothing except your opinion that killing people is a good thing.
Do you have anything to back that up? Oh, that's right: a bright person like you would have gotten around to it already, unless of course you're just dicking around to waste time. So back your opinion. I dare you.
It as bad enough when the Israelis started pulling their punches to placate world opinion instead of just kicking ass, but now the Chinese are getting on the bandwagon I take it you disapprove of peace? After all, it's your post.
It wasn't that many years ago when the users, after being given a reasonable time to mend their ways, as well as the dealers were being executed.
I just don't know what this world is coming toSo, in the end, I'm wrong again when I say that you've made little or no comment. It's so clear: as long as the government gets to kill something, you quite apparently don't give a rat's ass if it's right or wrong. Oh, wait a minute ... sorry, I guess I'm being presumptuous when I presume that killing could possibly be wrong in your opinion. I would hate to be presumptuous.
Hey, if all you can do is scribble out a few lines of bratty tantrum, don't bother. Bring something to show; after all, you're defending the right to murder people, and that's a unique position. Show us what you've got, killer.
Oh, and re: the Marines--that's the point of the Marines: to go into other countries. Show me where in the charter the Marines are authorized to enforce domestic law and suspend the Constitutional rights of the people of the United States of America. If you can't do that, then what the hell is your point, boy?
Dancing with you was fun but it's apparent that when you're on the short end of things you really do lose your cool (giving you the benefit of the doubt: that you can ever be cool).
Since you didn't care to take my recommendation re. going and talking to Loony after correcting your previous posts, I'm almost hesitant to make another.
Damn! It finally dawned on me: you're out of weed! That explains it! Hell, I shouldn't have apologized for upsetting you, Tiassa, I should have recommended a source!
Please accept my most abject apology. How could I have been so insensitive? Guess that's just me, a crotchety old fart that has a real problem with mouthy kids who don't know which end is up.
Ta, ta :p
Because you earn the same answer. Do you have anything to say? Didn't think so. Just because you're incapable of conceiving the depth of the situation does not mean that your fancy for murder is morally right.
Instead of responding to long posts with short, quippy pointlessness--something that Loone seems to do ... well, it's his modus operandi--you might try constructing an argument.
In the meantime, all you're accomplishing is the justification of the hypocrisy of society. Killing is apparently wrong, unless the government decides its okay for this or that event. As a matter of fact, as I look back through the posts here, it seems all you're interested in doing is justifying murder.
Such as your numbers. Well, let's look at them. China has what proportion of the world's population? And it performs what proportion of the world's executions? Well, for having just over a sixth of the world's population, they perform over half the state-sanctioned executions. It seems your attempt to break it down into raw numbers overlooks both proportion and morality.
So ... do you have anything to offer? Or just more excuses in order to justify your own bloodlust to yourself? Your confession of a fetish for brutality and savagery has done nothing to absolve it. Thankfully, that's not my role.
I'd sign out today with, "Peace," but I wouldn't want to offend you by offering such a puerile concept.
(I guess the fun thing about dancing, were I you, would be that I could then shoot anyone who stepped on my toe. Or, at least, I could beg my government to do it for me.)
And that's the thing about a good stoner, Chagur--we never run out of THC. When the bud runs out you turn to shake, and then the kif if you haven't burned it off on top of your buds, and then there's the duty you owe nature: recycling of the waste byproduct, or resin. And it's a strange principle, I admit, the consistency with which stoners keep their resin, even though they generally don't like smoking it.
But, it's another of your brilliant moments blown out your ass.
Maybe you should ask your government for a clue before you open your mouth. You know, like, Mr President, what does it taste like when I stick my foot in my mouth? Get a clue or buy a vowel. Have you anything to offer?
No? Why am I not surprised? (Try having a point, first, and then supporting that point. It's a novel concept in your world, I understand. But I think you'll find it useful and satisfying.
Are you aware that you haven't closed off a with 'Thanx,' for the last three posts? I know, it's difficult when you're scrambling to hang in there for all you're worth, and I can appreciate that.
Now let's see ... Damn, it's a beautiful sunset! Too bad I can't share it with you ... Oh, yeah ... Too bad you can just argue and try to jam down someone else's throat your inane position instead of debating the issue. But then, you're still a kid. I think I was around fourteen when I got involved with the N.F.L. (the National Forensic League, not the National Football League) and learned to debate an issue - like about the time your pappy was a gleam in your grand pappy's eye I would imagine.
I think I was about twenty, twenty-one when I was in Cuba and saw what it was like to live under Batista, dear beloved by Amerika Batista and his henchmen. Like about the time your pappy was learning to not soil his diapers.
And then there were the Anti-War protests and all that madness, including dear old Kunsler and SNCC ... along with a few lumps along the way ... and a few physical threats because I had the audacity to liken the defense of Hui to the Alamo in a letter to the editor (before your time). Fun times, including Kent State. Like about the time you pappy was getting a gleam in his eye.
And like seven years as a Volunteer Fireman, five of them with the Rescue Squad picking up pieces of people who were either damned unlucky or damned stupid. Gives you a nice, closeup look at death. I imagine about the time you were learning to squall.
And a few other things along the way, some of which were a lot of fun. Like getting a real kick out of Israel having the balls to blow up a reactor in another country that was capable of producing weapons grade material. Maybe you remember hearing about that, and how upset the whimps were.
I've seen, and done, too many things over the years to get upset about the Chinese deciding to execute a bunch of drug dealers ... what this thread was originally about ... to hypocritically pat you on your pointed little head for being so caring. Or to get upset about an eighteen year old who breaks the first rule of safe gun handling: Don't pull the trigger until you know what you're shooting at - Something I learned in High School, like fifty years ago.
So sonny, come back when you have something meaningful to say ... like about twenty years from now.
An old man can be as much a fool as a young man; he just has less excuse to his conscience.
Do you believe everything your government tells you? Now, do you believe China's government carries better credibility? Can you tell me that these people are guilty, or am I safe in presuming, at least, that you believe that both your government and China's are honest and forthright?
Do you believe that selling drugs is a penalty worthy of death? Please enlighten us as to why. I'll even go so far as to put up a couple of assertions as to why I think not.
* Drug related crime: As noted, Mr Garza, executed by the United States government, was actually executed for murder. Tell me--would people kill for drugs if they were not illegal? Would otherwise petty gangs in Los Angeles, Tacoma, and other cities, have shot up their cities if they were not moving hundreds of thousands of dollars in cocaine? Would junkies steal if drug prices weren't inflated by the black market? We should take a note from alcohol Prohibition, which was repealed in large part because of the violence it spawned.
* Drug addiction and treatment: Consider that in order for a drug addict to receive assistance, s/he must, by nature, confess to crimes. This, obviously, does not encourage voluntary rehabilitation. Nor do the conditions in rehabilitation centers, uniformly described as depressing.
* Education: Much of the anti-drug hysteria that causes people to elect persons who propose and sometimes even pass the most ridiculous of laws, is based on superstition. These same superstitions incite many people to turn a blind eye to the effects of the Drug War. The simple fact is that the "facts" that compel the people to support a Drug War are not so factual. There is also the reasonable assertion that properly educated people will use drugs in lesser proportions, and more responsibly toward themselves and others.
* Prisons: Who would you rather have in prison, a pot smoker or an armed robber? Strangely, despite the building of new prisons, bedspace is being proportionately reduced for violent criminals in order to house nonviolent drug possessors and low-level, nonviolent dealers. It's your tax money, or would you rather they just killed them all?
* Liberty: Even if someone hates arbitrarily illegal altered states of mind so much as to want to jail or kill the guilty, consider the way they're going about it. The Drug War is your leading shredder of the United States Constitution.
* Safety and Institutional Influence: Many heroin overdoses result from quality fluctuations in the market. Bad heroin takes more. In Portland, Oregon, a scary period saw junkies dying by the handful. It went away, and the only thing anyone can figure, reasonably, based on the physical evidence, is that some market newbie got hold of really good heroin and didn't cut it. The junkies shot up what they usually do and got purity. If nothing else, you must surely give a rat's behind about your tax money being wasted cleaning up the bodies. Institutional influence? Hey, can you imagine how much more powerful anti-drug literature would be in the junkie's mind if it wasn't haunted by the spectre of prison? It will be much easier to keep the government hand in the situation.
For these and other reasons I think the Drug War is a waste of much. Money, time, Liberty, and most importantly Life.
I'm curious about your lack of conclusions, as well. It seems to me that your primary effort in that last thread was to remind us that you're old. Or older. However it works for you is fine. Like this, for instance:
And like seven years as a Volunteer Fireman, five of them with the Rescue Squad picking up pieces of people who were either damned unlucky or damned stupid. Gives you a nice, closeup look at death. I imagine about the time you were learning to squall.I'm not sure what you're even after. Great, a nice closeup of death ... and? From the tone of your posts you took a liking to it. Is that a fair conclusion?
I seem to remember that. Don't recall the wimps, much. Of course, since you're so keen on reminding me of the disparity in our ages, I need not note, then, that I was young enough to still believe that there is a difference between killings, and that lines on a map were proper justification for those killings ... or God was proper justification ....[quote]I've seen, and done, too many things over the years to get upset about the Chinese deciding to execute a bunch of drug dealers ... what this thread was originally about ... to hypocritically pat you on your pointed little head for being so caring. Or to get upset about an eighteen year old who breaks the first rule of safe gun handling: Don't pull the trigger until you know what you're shooting at - Something I learned in High School, like fifty years ago. Umm... about the triggers: it's the Marine Corps that needs reminding. Of course, in warfare this isn't a good idea, so such distinctions aren't quite as clear, which is exactly why the Marine Corps is not a law enforcement body. Of the rest, I'm glad you've seen enough that you have no need care about anything. Well, there's yourself, but that's a given.
So sonny, come back when you have something meaningful to say ... like about twenty years from now. I'm glad to know that being older means I'm entitled to credibility. Then I can sit around and say whatever makes me feel good and, apparently, expect credibiity. Goshy, Mr Chagur, if I was a crotchety old fart like you, I'd probably figure out why that is.
Are you aware that you haven't closed off a with 'Thanx,' for the last three posts?I'm quite aware.
I'm glad to see you've calmed down a bit, Tiassa. Although it would seem that you're still a bit upset and not quit coherent yet.
An old man can be as much a fool as a young man; he just has less excuse to his conscience.
Agree with the first part of your comment (maybe even more of a fool) but don't understand what you are attempting to say in the second part. What has conscience got to do with foolishness?
No I don't believe much of what any government has to say. One of the things that amazed me back a ways was how willing a majority of the American public was to buy 'There's a light at the end of the tunnel' when it was public knowledge that: 1) We were shipping rice to S.Vietnam; and 2) That the Mekong Delta was the breadbasket of Vietnam. To any rational person that should have been proof that all the S.Vietnamese 'government', and the US, controlled were the larger cities. But apparently not. They bought the lie, along with the reason why we should be there.
No, I do not believe the hypocracy that says the selling and using of an 'illegal' drug requires a legal sanction when the legal sanctions for the production, sale, and use of 'legal' drugs carry few if any sanctions. That is unless you pull a stupid like drinking and driving, and then only if you have, or cause, an accident, or decide to beat on the old lady. Having riden motorcycles for better than forty years, and knowing that I avoid even a single social beer if I'm on two wheels and drink only one or two if I'm on four, I cannot believe how hypocritical our society can be.
Re. your bold type statements/comments: I'm pretty much in agreement. As a matter of fact, I still remember how much it upset me when Oscar, a Black heroine addict, hit the streets after having been incarcerated (for 'boosting' - 'shoplifting' in the common venacular) and was dead within six hours from an OD thanks to the purer shit that was making its way onto the streets. He was a pretty decent sort. Oh, and that was back in the '60's, in New York State - so what happened in Oregon was just a replay, though a few years later (quite a few, I would imagine).
Yes, the 'Drug War' is waste of money ... and lives ... and it's not a 'war', it's business. And don't forget the corrupting effect it has. Which, in some respects, is more of a concern to me than the lives it messes up. It's bad enough with the corporations in this country doing their corrupting bit. I wish someone would explain to me how a legal entity, 'the Corporation', is entitled to 'free speach'?
Let's see ... Oh yes, the use of the military in the 'War on Drugs': Piss poor idea. The military is trained to kill, or be killed, so unless we're willing to go all the way, accept an even higher fatality rate than we have with the police and other agencies of the government, best to use the military only for what the Marines were being used for: recon, and accept that if they are shot at, which was the case, they will return fire. You can't have it both ways.
So, now that I've pretty well laid out where I stand, but am in no way repentant for jerking you chain, nor willing to cry tears for the Chinese drug dealers, let me say: I'm glad you've calmed down a bit and were more coherent and less vorciferous in your last post. Hopefully, you'll learn one of these days that you don't have to be drugged out to face the madness of it all.
A bit out of order today, but here you go:
Hopefully, you'll learn one of these days that you don't have to be drugged out to face the madness of it all.So I take it that you consider my consumption of marijuana to be deviation from the living standard? Consider this: until 1937, in this country, the stuff grew where it pleased. It is sixty-four years later, and because Americans chose to foster Nylon in the market (Mariuhuana Tax Stamp Act--since you're talking about my granpappy and so forth, I imagine you would remember quite well when, in 1937, the US government effectively made marijuana illegal via a commercial revenue law). It is sixty-four years later, and we are 9 years away from a deadline declared by the United Nations: the wholesale eradication of Cannabis, Coca, and Opium plants from the face of the Earth. Wow. From everyday, living interaction to eradication in sixty years. You cannot, necessarily, build a cathedral in that period. Now, just so you don't suffer a brain-fart: the point has nothing to do with cathedrals. It's a time-frame. Now, since you're a fan of numbers, I'll give you two options.
* Creationism/6000 years: Cannabis has been illegal for 1% of the human endeavor. (64/6000)
* Evolution: Well, now ... the answer turns out to be 1.42 to the -8 power. That is, that number is the proportion of time that "drug-free" has been the "standard" of life.
So I suppose it's best said, sir, that I'm quite sorry that you didn't eventually learn that you need not deprive yourself of something essential to the living endeavor. If more people applied the living standard--that is, natural, occasional, and even systematic use of marijuana, coca, opium, psilocybin, and other harvested organisms deemed to "affect" the brain--the madness you mention would not be quite as mad.
but am in no way repentant for jerking you chain, nor willing to cry tears for the Chinese drug dealersNobody expects you to be. You're an old fart who believes people owe you respect for your mere existence, or so your tone indicates. If you think I'm misrepresenting you, then represent yourself more clearly in terms of what you wish to say. But it seems to me that if you don't want to cry tears for the Chinese, that's well and fine. Yet you went out of your way to excuse them, so it seems that you have some stake in it. It's obvious that you do care about the situation, and perhaps that's because of the thrill of superiority that comes to many people when someone is executed.
I'm glad you've calmed down a bit and were more coherent and less vorciferous in your last post. I only wish you had something to say. I'm glad, however, that you agree with me that drugs shouldn't be illegal. In light of that, I'm quite surprised that you still haven't the heart left in you to give a rat's ass about your fellow human beings.
Agree with the first part of your comment (maybe even more of a fool) but don't understand what you are attempting to say in the second part. What has conscience got to do with foolishness?Well, if a fool has no conscience, than nothing whatsoever. But since you seem to advocate murder, I didn't want to assume that you gave a rat's behind about your neighbors, which is usually the most effective way of making the point. But the fact of the matter is that you seem to assert some sense of wisdom with age; if that assumption is in any way true, the we expect the older mind, by wisdom of experience, to be less foolish. Youth is impetuous, for we are not born knowing everything in the Unvierse, and must learn those things we need, and why we need to know them. So youth has the excuse of having not figured out that point of one's foolishness. The older, wiser, more experienced, has less excuse. Now, if one thinks in terms of how one treats other human beings in the world, then one seeks excuse from their foolishness via the understanding of their neighbors. If one doesn't give a rat's behind about their neighbors then one is only accountable to oneself. This can be avoided by a dismissal of one's conscience, but I am hardly prepared to declare you sociopathic. So, in the end, standing before whatever one values--god, conscience, family--the old fart has less excuse for foolishness. Conscience? Well, we know that you don't have much for other people, so I thought to modify the phrase to something I figured you did respond to. Let me know, though, if I'm wrong in my oh-so-unfair assumption that you have a conscience to begin with.
I'm quite surprised that you still haven't the heart left in you to give a rat's ass about your fellow human beings
Perhaps because I've found too many of my fellow homo sapiens to be ignorantly opinionated loudmouths who neither respect, nor tolerate, other people's opinions and go out of their way to foment discord.
Really? That's all you have to say for that post? Cool enough, I suppose.
Can I ask, then, if your principle is against discord, or against the appearance of discord? There's a difference, you know.
Is your principle against discord a general or specific one? Is there no discord beneficial to the human race? I tend to think here of the ignorantly opinionated loudmouths who kicked the British out of the colonies, and those who abolished slavery. I tend to think of the ignorantly opinionated loudmouths who secured woman sufferage. These ignorantly opinionated loudmouths were quite the detriment for the human race, weren't they?
Of the ignorantly opinionated loudmouths who neither respect nor tolerate others' opinions, I tend to think of the Drug Warriors, who frequently work to make it illegal to express opinions contradictory to the tenuous web of misinformation supporting the Drug War. You know, the kind of people who would pass laws against free speech?
Or perhaps those ignorantly opinionated loudmouths in Oregon who believe that freedom is restricted to one specific religion.
Seriously, and without sarcasm.
Is genetic, social, or ideological homogony beneficial to the human species? Discord aimed at liberating humanity from the artificial standards by which it holds itself back is rather beneficial to human progress. Discord aimed at narrowing the human vision is exceptionally detrimental to that human progress.
So is it about all discord, or is it your opinion of discord?
But that's a very wise philosophy: When you decide you don't want to care anymore, just don't. But, as we know, you do care enough to voice your support for murder as a social solution. Frankly, this puzzles me, since you've offered nothing as to the reasons why except that you're older than I am and therefore, apparently, know better, and that you're tired of giving a rat's behind. To be honest, I generally choose to believe that people can do better than that, and it's inappropriate for me to assume that you're as heartless as your rhetoric presents. And there, I admit, I'm quite puzzled. You seem to rationalize that murder is okay because it's not that big a slice of the population. This is a fair consideration, except that its relevance to the debate comes from the presupposition that executions are a proper, effective way to ensure societal security. I disagree wholeheartedly with such a presupposition, and your failure to posit any perspective on such a presupposition leaves me to compare your words against the conclusions I build from my own presuppositions and the resolution of the validity of those presuppositions.
It is the only conclusion I can reach that you do, in fact, find murder to be an acceptable way of building a crime-free society; I'm quite sorry if it just doesn't make sense to me how that particular idea works, but you haven't been forthcoming on that notion either.
Your apathy empowers the ignorant, opinionated loudmouths. Your flippancy is reminiscent of Bob Weiner, at least. Your appreciation for death encourages ideas that will prove detrimental to society. I would hope that you at least can express why you support murder as a societal solution, instead of simply dismissing people's concerns with smarmy and pointless references to your age.
It's up to you. But I thought I would at least mention that you're starting to resemble Loone in one specific mode: your best response to other people's opinions is to shorten up your posts as much as possible, ignore the concerns, and demonstrate the shortcomings of either your sympathy to the human condition, or else of your wit.
Or is it a compliance thing? Human rights and propriety be damned, and just obey your government? That's what I can't figure out. But you do seem to enjoy the idea of murder as a societal solution, and I keep hoping you'll clarify that somewhat instead of hide amid your schmoozing opinion of your charm.
Gracie said it best ...
"Insignificant events can take on monumental proportions
when your head is full of practically nothing" -Grace Slick-
And that's the issue whence you would have to be intentionally deceptive to get it wrong: yourself.
It seems that you are indeed too old to care about your fellow human beings; or, at least, are exceptionally determined to conduct yourself as such.
It seems age has brought a bitterness, too, as I observe the bulk of your posts tend toward the condescending and have little to do with those things about which you claim wisdom.
Sorry to waste your time, then, Chagur, but if it's such an insignificant issue to you, why did you bother wasting either of our time?
You had me fooled there, I admit. For a while, I actually thought you had a point to make.
Then explain it to this young ignorant whippersnapper. As far as I can tell, based on your statements, is that giving a damn about other human beings is a waste of time.
And I'm pretty sure that's not your point.
But other than that, it still looks as if you haven't one.
I seriously considered leaving you slowly twisting and swinging in the breeze Tiassa ... but then, damn it, my better nature (I do have one, contrary to what you may care to believe) took over after reading another post of your's wherein you refer to James Joyce's 'Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man' - A favorite of mine since I had initially dove into 'Ulysses' and only made it part way, about a third, through before giving up on it.
And then I had the good fortune to read 'Portrait' - It was the key I needed to get back into 'Ulysses' and Joyce's stream of consciousness style, finish it up, and dive into 'Finnigan's Wake' before the Summer ended and it was back to school. It was one of my better Summers. So, thank you for triggering that memory ... and you can thank Joyce for cutting you down.
Looking back over this conversation/discussion/rant I realized that we both passed up, or missed, a few chances to collect coupe, a far more civilized way of conducting war ... no, settling conflict. And decided too that the buttons I was pressing were really a bit too much for you to handle. Unless I'm mistaken, you haven't lost your cool to anywhere near the same degree in some of your other 'discussions'. Please accept my apology for being so rough on you.
Another thing that came to mind reading over this series of posts, and some others, were the lines from a poem, whose author I have forgotten, that started 'Had he and I but met by some ancient inn ... ' and ends with 'Yes, quaint and curious war is! You shoot a fellow down you'd treat if met where any bar is, or help to half a crown.'
I'd say: Yes, you are young, and a whippersnapper ... but not ignorant, just a bit too dogmatic and too committed to a cause you can never win. Oh well, I think that were we to meet, I'd treat you to a pint ... or a joint. What would be even more interesting: if I were twenty years younger and you were twenty years older. Who knows, together we might have solved the problems of the world.
Which brings up another train of thought: Pogo's 'We have met the enemy and he is us!' I really think that more than anything else, our 'butting heads' was classic: Two hard-heads arguing over what amounts to reversed priorities.
In my world, the order of commitment is:
Comrades/Family or Family/Comrades (determined by circumstances);
The rest of the fucking world!
I think in your world it's reversed for whatever reason.
Take care. We've given the onlookers enough chuckles.
We've given the onlookers enough chuckles. I agree you have.
But I doubt as many was you gave them a while back with this post:
My own brain-teaser to offer:
What is the leading factor in overpopulation?
I'll even invoke a bumper sticker, just for shits & giggles:
Life is a 100% fatal, sexually-transmitted disease.
We are unutterably alone, essentially, especially in the things most intimate and important to us. (Ranier Maria Rilke)
But what does it have to do with the execution of 59 CONVICTED drug dealers in China? Nothing, directly. But I do think that your extended rants with Loony have have begun to wear on you and who knows? Maybe you are beginning to see the light!
Hang in there, kid.
O-tay, Chagur Whatever the old man says, right?
I'll recycle another of my quotes here, to save you the research. It comes from the pop band Toad the Wet Sprocket: You can bend my ear, we can talk all day; just make sure I'm around when you finally have something to say.
thanx much, poppy,
Decent retort, Tiassa.
Too bad you have nothing more to say about a subject apparently dear to your heart.
Too bad you have nothing more to say about a subject apparently dear to your heart.Well, it seems to me there's not much point. You've handed me what I wanted; a demonstration that the only reasons to support the death penalty involve not caring about your fellow human being.
Anything beyond that is superfluous; you seem either unwilling or unable to address the actual topic at hand. All you can offer is that you think killing people is cool, and that we shouldn't worry about any murders in this country since they're such a small proportion of the living population, and that it seems to help combat overpopulation. Hey--it's what you've given me to work with.
But thank you for the effort. Truly.
Looks like it is a private conversation. However, I will inject a few comments here.
Chinese are expected to play the drug game so they are playing very well. Unlike US who locks up one percentage of the population behind bars, Chinese can not afford it, so they execute them. In the process, the political prisoners also reach the same fate. Who is checking!
You have, I believe, struck at the heart of the matter. But they got the Olympics, so I can't tell if that's good or bad for human rights. To the one hand, they have less obligation to "be good", as such. To the other, I'm not sure "being good" is healthy; after all--fireworks at a mass execution? I wonder if we're all missing some arcane sarcasm.
In '97 a bill went before Congress that would have made international drug smuggling a capital offense: two ounces of weed at the Canadian border would get you executed. Thankfully, that did not pass. Nor did Rep Moakley's bill in Missouri that would have cost drug users a functional limb.
That's hopeful, but overall I'd like to see the world get educated. Wars, crimes, and all sorts of nasty stuff will undergo a massive scaling back amid a more enlightened society. This may sound utopiate, but then again, our American utopia would have everyone charging it at interest.
I don't know; I'm just particularly horrified at the spectre of death glorified for a cause.
Just some random ramblings ... thanx much for wise nugget.
Thanks for replying to my post. Truth always hurts. Here are the truths spoken from a neutral side (I spent some time in China):
1. China wants to be an economic super power way bigger than Japan.
2. They have the same brain power as the Japanese but more free spirit that gives them the advantage.
3. China wants to do it based on their own constraints.
4. Westerners (whites and overseas chinese) want to clean chinese house and decorate it Holywood way NOW.
5. That creates conflict. On one side China wants help, on the otherside HELP comes with a price.
6. China wants to change, but slowly
7. We want them to change NOW
8. I suggest...GO SLOW...there will be change...it will be good for the world.
9. GO...FAST....will create more conflict.
It is like having sex and date rape..... (Dinner and a movie and....sex in the city....)
Truth About Drugs:
Indians (The real ones) have been smoking and eating pot for thousands of years. The country still exists. It produces prodigious amout of computer engineers. I grew up in that environment and took the product once when I was a child without knowing what it was. Very few people take it. Those who do - use it during worship ceremonies. Abuse is rare though it does happen.
I suggest...just before election time...everybody write to their congressperson to decriminalize (take the law off the books) specific to any plant items. If GOD did not want us to have it, She would not have put it here.
Manmade chemicals are another matter. Any highly addictive drugs and dangerous chemicals should be controlled and punishment must fit the crime (that is our constitutional right) - which does not happen.
The key to solve this - is awareness and again send emails by the thousands to the elected reps. One other thing: Why we have a serious drug problem? You would think poor countries like India would have because of desperation!
In regards to China, I doubt they have a real drug problem. That is a ruse to eliminate certain elements of the society....(Do you know that we smuggle bibles to China and preach christianity in a clandestine way which chinese consider taboo?)
I don't have the time to read all of this but it sounds basically like activism against China's death penalty. Considering all the human rights abuses China engages in - this doesn't seem like much. I wonder if Amnesty International is fighting to save every criminal the US puts to death... somehow I doubt it. Nevertheless, I understand Tiassa's support for individuals in China regarding drug laws - but in my opinion China has much bigger human rights problems.
but in my opinion China has much bigger human rights problemsI believe the only difference we'll suffer here is that I consider it all the same problem. This particular atrocity is merely symptomatic of a larger human disease.
And it's cool to skip a couple of portions of this post; it's mostly Chagur and I bashing each other ... but, as noted in the Economist thread, we seem to be referring back to some of those less delicately expressed argumentative points .... ;)
12-05-02, 02:38 AM
I just bought some opium through a friend. When my z arrived it was white, like white with a little yellow tint resin like crystals. I was expecting to get black/brown tarish classic opium, maybe brown sugar like powder, but definately not something white. The guy insists this is very good opium. I smoked it and it is smooth but I didnt get high, and I assume I got ripped off. This seems like some kind of opium fragrance or one of those smoking resins that you can get from magazines that are like real opium but not really opium. Tiassa, I saw your post below about 'Chinese White Opium Resin'. What is this? I am wondering if this is what I have. Do you mean heroin #4? Or is this some kind of refined opium? Opium starts out white I know on the pod, but it turns black after exposed to oxygen... so I dont know what I have.... It would be much much appreciated if you can explain this chinese white opium resin you mention so I can see if this is what I have. I paid 300 for a half z... I didnt smoke that much but I did take about 10 hits so I assume I would have gotten high... I thought I might have felt something but that could have just been placibo like effect... Hey Tiassa, by the way I live in Seattle, WA too... if you want me to show you some or send you an image I can do that.
12-05-02, 09:08 AM
Erowid has pictures i believe and you will find some very experienced druggies on bluelight.nu
Alternatively one could buy STRONG opiates legally through the internet: the are many overseas pharm sources for Oxycontin, Nubain and Ultram.
12-05-02, 09:16 AM
The chinese have not only jumped on the anti-drug bandwagon but also on the anti-religion bandwagon. If I wasn't convinced the chinese government misuse this for their own purposes, surpressing human rights in the process, me as an atheist would have actually agreed with them, but seeing their monolithic partyconventions with all that applaudcadle and them red curtains and symbols, it is allmost a scary religion by itself.
Originally posted by Vortexx
The chinese have not only jumped on the anti-drug bandwagon but also on the anti-religion bandwagon.
You have to study Chinese history to really understand why they hate drugs. Their downfall to western imperialism was mostly blamed on the rampant drug use among nobles in power and British Opium war. The Chinese do not the same attitude toward drug users as we do here. Drug users are treated the same way as serial killers.
Chinese don't share the same value as Americans do, which make Tiassa's original post quite ridiculous. You can't assume every culture think exactly the same way we do.
As far as religion is concerned, I know for fact Zen Buddhism is totally allowed. Some bastardized versions of Buddhism are not however. I believe they only persecute Islam, which I have no problems with. Christianity is okay also as long as you don't try to spread it.