the hypocracy of our drug laws

My job is not to educate you. I said FARC and if you dont think they are terrorists then there is nothing to discuss. Are you just looking for a fight?
 
I'm not the one who started typing in CAPS to stress a point I wasn't prepared to back up. And besides that, you weren't even paying attention to the thread, because you brought up FARC, which isn't even a terrorist group. And when you were told so, you decided to start accusing people of being high.

So as it stands now, you're the only one here trying to pick a fight. Your best bet would be to forget this thread and join in on one where nobody cares if the best you can offer is a one-line answer.
 
what do you want me to tell you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia

FARC is considered a terrorist group by the Colombian government,[1] the United States Department of State,[2] Canada[3] and the European Union.[4][5] Other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, are more sympathetic to FARC.[6] Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez publicly rejected their classification as "terrorists" in January 2008, considering them to be "real armies", and called on the Colombian government and international community to recognize the guerrillas as a “belligerent force”, arguing that this would then oblige them to renounce kidnappings and terror acts in order to respect the Geneva Conventions.[7][8]
FARC was established in the 1960s as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party and thus originated as a guerrilla movement. The group later became involved with the cocaine trade during the 1980s to finance itself,[9] but remained closely tied to the Communist Party even as it created the Patriotic Union in the early 1980s and later a political structure it calls the Clandestine Colombian Communist Party.[10]
Click to expand...

take it up with someone else. i already said a good friend of mine was born and raised in Columbia and he said similar to what i am saying.
 
John99 said:
what do you want me to tell you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia

FARC is considered a terrorist group by the Colombian government,[1] the United States Department of State,[2] Canada[3] and the European Union.[4][5] Other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, are more sympathetic to FARC.[6] Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez publicly rejected their classification as "terrorists" in January 2008, considering them to be "real armies", and called on the Colombian government and international community to recognize the guerrillas as a “belligerent force”, arguing that this would then oblige them to renounce kidnappings and terror acts in order to respect the Geneva Conventions.[7][8]
FARC was established in the 1960s as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party and thus originated as a guerrilla movement. The group later became involved with the cocaine trade during the 1980s to finance itself,[9] but remained closely tied to the Communist Party even as it created the Patriotic Union in the early 1980s and later a political structure it calls the Clandestine Colombian Communist Party.[10]
Click to expand...


take it up with someone else. i already said a good friend of mine was born and raised in Columbia and he said similar to what i am saying.
Click to expand...

I plead to being a bit lazy. I had actually heard that FARC was classified as a terrorist organization by some, although as the article you quoted mentions, not everyone agrees. For this reason, I probably went with the idea of cartel, but ideally, I should have said that many consider it to be a terrorist organization. Kudos John, for quoting some relevant parts of the wiki article :).

I think the best definition of a terrorist group would be a group of people who terrorizes others, frequently by killing others. Ofcourse, using this definition, the U.S. military definitely qualifies as well. The lines between freedom fighters, terrorists, state sponsored terrorism and state terrorism frequently blur. Personally, I think most would agree that you try to deal with the groups that are less violent. The reason violence still exists, in my view, is best exemplified by a few things that Frank Herbert, author of the Dune series of books as well as other sci fi novels, said:
Law always chooses sides on the basis of enforcement power. Morality and legal niceties have little to do with it when the real question is: Who has the clout?

I think his wording isn't 100% correct. I -definitely- agree that the law is based on who has the clout and the enforcement power. -However-, democracies have some power of making sure that the people with the clout/enforcement power have to -some- morals; leaders who are too immoral generally don't last too long, especially in a country where democratic values are deeply enshrined. Some, in order to avoid the possibility of dictatorships, mandate that leaders can only be in power for, say, 8 years ;-).
 
In this day and age, every criminal organization is labeled a terrorist organization. It doesn't change that FARC is really just a drug cartel.
 
JDawg said:
In this day and age, every criminal organization is labeled a terrorist organization. It doesn't change that FARC is really just a drug cartel.
Click to expand...

If this was just a bunch of hippies growing their herbs, I'd agree. However, FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia is what the initials stand for) is not exactly in that type of a category. It's very name, translated, is, "Armed Revolutionary Forces of Columbia" and believe me, they use those weapons in more then just self defense. They have engaged in a lot of kidnappings, many of which have greatly damaged their reputation. I'm not saying that the government smells of roses either, but while one can certainly argue that Columbia practices state sponsored terror, with the help of their american allies and one could say that FARC has -some- nobility in its ideas that wealth should be distributed in a more equal manner, FARC's many kidnappings have pushed many to consider it to be a terrorist organization.

Considering the government has done similar things (they simply imprison people instead of kidnap them), one could argue that 2 terrorist organizations vie for control of the country.
 
scott3x said:
If this was just a bunch of hippies growing their herbs, I'd agree. However, FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia is what the initials stand for) is not exactly in that type of a category. It's very name, translated, is, "Armed Revolutionary Forces of Columbia" and believe me, they use those weapons in more then just self defense. They have engaged in a lot of kidnappings, many of which have greatly damaged their reputation. I'm not saying that the government smells of roses either, but while one can certainly argue that Columbia practices state sponsored terror, with the help of their american allies and one could say that FARC has -some- nobility in its ideas that wealth should be distributed in a more equal manner, FARC's many kidnappings have pushed many to consider it to be a terrorist organization.

Considering the government has done similar things (they simply imprison people instead of kidnap them), one could argue that 2 terrorist organizations vie for control of the country.
Click to expand...

Cartels aren't hippies growing weed. Cartels are dangerous, deadly organizations that proliferate drugs and protect their interests by any means necessary. Terrorist groups do what they do in order to force political change, whereas cartels do what they do to make money. I'm not saying that a group like FARC can't or hasn't blurred the line at times, but they are a cartel first and foremost.

I really don't agree with the post-9/11 media (and governmental, really) practice of deeming every piece of violent dissent an act of terrorism, or every criminal group a terrorist organization. It's lazy and dishonest, and confuses the issue where no confusion need be. It's not about the vernacular per se, but more about how we put everybody in one nifty basket when they don't belong there.
 
Actually one of the main reasons "certain" drugs aren't allowed to be sold is because there's no tax on these sales. Look at coffee, cigarettes, or even medical herb.
 
Ladicius said:
Actually one of the main reasons "certain" drugs aren't allowed to be sold is because there's no tax on these sales. Look at coffee, cigarettes, or even medical herb.
Click to expand...

You've put the carriage before the horse. The reason "certain" drugs aren't taxed is because they're not sold legally. If the government were to legalize a drug, they could then tax it.
 
My posts do not seem to make it through. So let me shorten this, on second thought take a toke and just forget about the fact that I just attempted two posts that were not allowed through....
 
Two sites to review: www.ascp.org/Certification

Question: Why are the two competing certifying agencies for laboratory professionals joining into a "monopoly" into "joint concerns." - www.nca-info.org

Second, see the site www.medicalnewstoday.com for information regarding clinical trials without ethical review under the spotlight (26 Apr 2004)

Third, the war on drugs and the promotion of generic drugs being produced by companies like Tyco, who owns ADT, and the subsequent generic drug manufacturer Malinkrodkt (sp?).

Finally, this article http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/12/1071 that regards weed and the carcinogenic effects. Less yes, but do not attempt to strip my rights to legal ADD medication, based on some false sense of superiority in the health factors of organic weed.
 
It shouldn't matter whether or not marijuana is dangerous for the lungs. Alcohol is poison, and destroys your liver, but it's legal.
 
Cordelia_2_PNIsuiter said:
Can anyone on this thread show us data on whether or not the inhalation of weed is non-toxic to the lungs?
Click to expand...

You can dig up the vrious studies if you care to but the synopsis is the low to moderate cannibis use actually reduces your chance of cancer. This has lead to the discovery of a new cancer inhibiting compound.

Heavy use is damaging in other ways. Also any smoke inhalation over time is not the best idea. Vaporizors are much gentler on your lungs and reduce CO issues as well.

Pot is getting to be extremely well studied and is almost uniformly found to be about as benign as its possible to get and still be biologically active. Also the negatives generally require constant heavy use to achieve.
 
JDawg said:
scott3x said:
If this was just a bunch of hippies growing their herbs, I'd agree. However, FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia is what the initials stand for) is not exactly in that type of a category. It's very name, translated, is, "Armed Revolutionary Forces of Columbia" and believe me, they use those weapons in more then just self defense. They have engaged in a lot of kidnappings, many of which have greatly damaged their reputation. I'm not saying that the government smells of roses either, but while one can certainly argue that Columbia practices state sponsored terror, with the help of their american allies and one could say that FARC has -some- nobility in its ideas that wealth should be distributed in a more equal manner, FARC's many kidnappings have pushed many to consider it to be a terrorist organization.

Considering the government has done similar things (they simply imprison people instead of kidnap them), one could argue that 2 terrorist organizations vie for control of the country.
Click to expand...

Cartels aren't hippies growing weed. Cartels are dangerous, deadly organizations that proliferate drugs and protect their interests by any means necessary. Terrorist groups do what they do in order to force political change, whereas cartels do what they do to make money. I'm not saying that a group like FARC can't or hasn't blurred the line at times, but they are a cartel first and foremost.
Click to expand...

What makes you so sure? I actually felt they were more of a terrorist/force for political change gone terribly awry type of deal and they simply realized the numerous financial benefits of being involved in the drug trade. I'd think that their right wing counterparts are more in line to make cash, but I admit that I'm relying on intuition here; I don't really pay all that much attention to what's going on over in Columbia as it's a ways from where I live (Canada).


I really don't agree with the post-9/11 media (and governmental, really) practice of deeming every piece of violent dissent an act of terrorism, or every criminal group a terrorist organization. It's lazy and dishonest, and confuses the issue where no confusion need be. It's not about the vernacular per se, but more about how we put everybody in one nifty basket when they don't belong there.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree. I also believe that 9/11 itself should be much more thoroughly itself and have discussed this a fair amount over in pseudoscience (they won't let us discuss it anywhere else here as of yet).
 
Scott for someone who does not pay attention or lives so far away from all these places you comment on then maybe you should educate yourself before flooding with uneducated commentary.
 
John99 said:
Scott for someone who does not pay attention or lives so far away from all these places you comment on then maybe you should educate yourself before flooding with uneducated commentary.
Click to expand...

It's one thing to know a whole lot about organizations that produce drugs way off in Columbia. It's another thing entirely to speak about the drug laws in Canada, where I was born and raise, or the U.S., a neighbour that isn't exactly far off :p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top