After we gather all of the evil opium together we can light it on fire and let it burn. Then we will be in a good enough mood that we can do something really productive like hanging and burning Rod Stewart in effigy.
Why is neither acceptable? Why are those drugs unacceptable and alcohol and tobacco perfectly OK?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, saying neither is acceptable. Limiting the people of Kentucky to their marijuana culture is narrow and biased. I didn't say anything about the drugs themselves. But since you ask...
I don't have a problem with people using drugs, morally. They can do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt others (no using heavy machinery, etc.). That goes for drugs of any kind. "Hurt others" includes destroying one's family, etc.
I do, however, have a problem with the infrastructure that illicit drugs, whether they're crystal meth, or pot, or opium, creates. That infrastructure then makes feasible (less costly) crime of all kinds. It's the underworld I don't like. And drugs make it profitable for the underworld to function. In economics it's called "economies of scale" and "economies of scope."
I can't say I do. Hell from all accounts Afghanistan is a massive dirt farm. The poor bastards don't even have oil to let fat Western white men come in and pump out and give them handfulls of greasy cash for.
<hr></blockquote>
You must be talking about a different afghanistan that the one in central asia.
Afghanistan in central asia has massive natural gas resources, but more importantly, it has been estimated to have copper reserves larger than chile (the world leader) and perhaps larger reserves of emeralds than world leader columbia, in addition to other gemstones. It also has large supply of coal, and 6 commercially attractive oil fields.
In addition, that pipeline you refer to has been the central force driving the country's political situation for over a decade, and still remains very important. Both Karzai and the US envoy to afghanistan are former employees of unocal, the primary member of CentGas, the group working to build the pipeline in the 90s. Cheney was also an important member of this group. Iran funded the Northern Alliance in order to prevent a stable government, thus requiring the pipeline to be build in Iran.
It's no secret that Caspian oil is very important to the US government (not unlike every other developed country). They flaunt it as being one of the highest piorities for our 'national security,' which apparently means our ability to drive inefficient vehicles makes us safer.
Oh, and the US has always been of great assistance to afghan poppy farmers.
Please elaborate. Until my last post, I hadn't said anything about the drugs, or drug users.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your load of crap (as I put it) had nothing to do with drugs or drug users. It was in response to the idea that some phantoms were claiming that the US would suffer tens of thousands of losses.
I appreciate your smart-assed tone, giant, it's par for the course with you but thanks for your contribution about Afghanistan's copper and natural gas reserves are welcomed indeed. You might want to see a doctor about that stick up your ass, though.
Comments
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: ColanderOfDeath ]</p>
<strong>And a load of crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know as well as I do that what finboy said was a load of crap.
<strong>
Because we say so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We the People. (Sorry, tiz was late and me was a little, well, drunk)
<strong>
Why is neither acceptable? Why are those drugs unacceptable and alcohol and tobacco perfectly OK?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, saying neither is acceptable. Limiting the people of Kentucky to their marijuana culture is narrow and biased. I didn't say anything about the drugs themselves. But since you ask...
I don't have a problem with people using drugs, morally. They can do as they please as long as it doesn't hurt others (no using heavy machinery, etc.). That goes for drugs of any kind. "Hurt others" includes destroying one's family, etc.
I do, however, have a problem with the infrastructure that illicit drugs, whether they're crystal meth, or pot, or opium, creates. That infrastructure then makes feasible (less costly) crime of all kinds. It's the underworld I don't like. And drugs make it profitable for the underworld to function. In economics it's called "economies of scale" and "economies of scope."
[ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: finboy ]</p>
<strong>
You know as well as I do that what finboy said was a load of crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please elaborate. Until my last post, I hadn't said anything about the drugs, or drug users.
I can't say I do. Hell from all accounts Afghanistan is a massive dirt farm. The poor bastards don't even have oil to let fat Western white men come in and pump out and give them handfulls of greasy cash for.
<hr></blockquote>
You must be talking about a different afghanistan that the one in central asia.
Afghanistan in central asia has massive natural gas resources, but more importantly, it has been estimated to have copper reserves larger than chile (the world leader) and perhaps larger reserves of emeralds than world leader columbia, in addition to other gemstones. It also has large supply of coal, and 6 commercially attractive oil fields.
In addition, that pipeline you refer to has been the central force driving the country's political situation for over a decade, and still remains very important. Both Karzai and the US envoy to afghanistan are former employees of unocal, the primary member of CentGas, the group working to build the pipeline in the 90s. Cheney was also an important member of this group. Iran funded the Northern Alliance in order to prevent a stable government, thus requiring the pipeline to be build in Iran.
It's no secret that Caspian oil is very important to the US government (not unlike every other developed country). They flaunt it as being one of the highest piorities for our 'national security,' which apparently means our ability to drive inefficient vehicles makes us safer.
Oh, and the US has always been of great assistance to afghan poppy farmers.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
<strong>
Please elaborate. Until my last post, I hadn't said anything about the drugs, or drug users.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your load of crap (as I put it) had nothing to do with drugs or drug users. It was in response to the idea that some phantoms were claiming that the US would suffer tens of thousands of losses.
<strong>
But we have troops on the ground in Afghanistan now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
An very small number actually fought. Most American troops directed afghanis or provided targeting.
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
"from all accounts" was there for a reason.