Judge Forrest was partially right

Hi, just a little note, behind the cocaine business there is a lot of really scary violence. So, if you buy colombian and peruvian cocaine in the markets you are contributing to finance one civil war in Colombia that has more than 50 years and has as main financial source the cocaine exportation to the USA.

It doesn't matter if you don't have to go to the streets and buy the cocaine, the harm was already done. So please change your drug habits if you are cocaine consumer or just don't use your "harm-reduction" rhetoric. I really think that just a few members of the DNM are really concerned about this. I see no more in the future the defence of harm reduction as one of the flags of DNM. I'm afraid we live in a world with global problems and drug policy is one of them. Drug violence is not reductible to the purchase of drugs and the face to face interaction between consumer and dealer, but to the entire chain and it involves many countries and people.

I'm sure that here there are yet people with some brain and not only paranoids and addicts waiting their orders.

Sorry for my english.


Comments


[11 Points] None:

That's one of many reasons why drugs should be decriminalized.


[9 Points] Trappy_Pandora:

Do you know of any vendors that rerock their cocaine with the tears of south americans? I would pay extra for that.


[6 Points] The_Grid_Is_Up:

What you got against cocaine bro?


[2 Points] DexOyama:

Only reason she mentioned coke was because white kids were getting their hands on it. Had Ross or any other vendor just sold to blacks they would never have a problem in the US


[2 Points] darknetpotter:

or just don't use your "harm-reduction" rhetoric

Note - harm REDUCTION. Not cutting out all harm altogether. No violent street deals reduces harm. Actually knowing what's in your drugs still reduces harm. Does that mean people won't ever OD? Of course not. But there's less risk of accidental OD because you're used to shitty cuts and suddenly get a pure substance. Harm is therefore reduced.

Yes, there is still violence in the industry, but the only way to cut that out is legalize and regulate.


[2 Points] sozzZ:

You would hope someone would be more than 'partially' right when they come to handing down life sentences with no parole option.


[1 Points] cocainesux:

I would not have any problem with cocaine if it was produced far away from countries involved in bloody civil wars, where cocaine plays a central role. The good new is that the new drug policy focused on drugs as health issue has as justification the failure of the war on cocaine and associated costs to the criminalization, the bad new is that this new policy is not promoted by USA and easily could not find many powerful allies.


[1 Points] None:

[deleted]


[1 Points] JailsucksLEtoo:

this is a choice made by states...there will always be people snorting cocaine so the only thing to do is to decide how is to be produced.They have chosen blood


[1 Points] footlockervip:

Yeah let me quit doing heroin and cocaine because of a civil war in another country. Not because it made me homeless or anything like that..


[1 Points] heyfreshhhhh:

The violence is due to prohibition, not the drugs. Come on, use some common fucking sense.


[1 Points] fnnuts:

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) says it best. quoting leap's reason to end prohibition - "We believe that drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes these drugs so valuable – while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply. Driven by the huge profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and children. Their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control."

Judge Forrest and all the other prohibition advocates are the reason cocaine is a funding source for terrorist and conflicts.

Now do you get it?