Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: DSiddious on May 18, 2012, 03:00 am
-
Knowing that it funds the Taliban, is it right to use afghan products. Or is it a case of don't give a shit where it comes from as long as it is there. Its funny people call for legalization and yet output from Afghanistan has gone up by 70% since we went in. So in some way the governments (US&UK) is helping the flow. Who's to say they don't line their pockets along the way. Making money on the blood of our boys, I'd like to know if it would put anybody off buying afghan if they really knew what they were buying.
-
Knowing that it funds the Taliban, is it right to use afghan products. Or is it a case of don't give a shit where it comes from as long as it is there. Its funny people call for legalization and yet output from Afghanistan has gone up by 70% since we went in. So in some way the governments (US&UK) is helping the flow. Who's to say they don't line their pockets along the way. Making money on the blood of our boys, I'd like to know if it would put anybody off buying afghan if they really knew what they were buying.
Ummm.... The opium fields being burnt by the previous Afghan regime is one of the leading causes for the war. About 90% of America's heroin comes from there. As far as America is concerned, this is exactly what we fight for, so keep on smokin!
-
Better to fund the Taliban than the big Pharma companies. Those guys are evil. ;)
-
ALSO. What part does morality play into a heroin user?
"I'd rather shoot-up with heroin not cultivated in Afghani lands."
Isn't the whole point just to get high? Either way you're funding some sort of drug cartel or massive heroin business; keeping thousands upon thousands of people involved in labor and covert operations. By all means, just shoot up man, you're still fucking people over in the end.
-
I don't use opy's btw. But knowing that it does fund the Taliban does kind of swing me toward the view that people should not take heroine. I knew there would be a crime ring I'm not that stupid but one that is fighting and killing our troops? Its weird fighting the Taliban and then at the same time funding them.
-
Take the red pill dude. Things are not what they seem.
-
If you watch porn or do drugs then the terrorists win.
-
Take the red pill dude. Things are not what they seem.
Ugh, what he said. I wanna say so much but the futility of it's end stop me from doing so.
-
Eh... if you do coke you're funding the cartels, if you do ecstasy you're incentivizing the destruction of rain forests in Asia, if you buy pretty much any computer you're supporting companies that have pushed for bullshit CISPA/SOPA type legislation (intel, microsoft, ibm, etc.), if you pay your taxes you're funding wars and all sorts of horrible shit...
As long as whatever you're doing isn't bad in itself, I wouldn't worry about it. It's not your fault that a bunch of assholes made heroin illegal. I'd sooner give money to Al Qaeda than the US government anyway.
-
Who gives a fuck if it funds terrorists the only reason you can't buy pure heroin from Smack-Mart is because of governments war on drugs, they fund terrorism you just use heroin. The government can cry me a fucking river about drugs funding terrorism, governments war on drugs is what fucking funds terrorism.
-
OP baring in mind the Chinese Triads control about 85% of the safrole supply that makes MDMA but at the same time are responsible for human trafficking and a lot of sex slavery do you think it's moral to take MDMA? What about going to McDonalds and eating a burger when the meat comes from farms that cut vast areas of the amazon rainforest down to graze their cattle?
-
Let's just cut to the root of the morality issue. Governments war on drugs results in heroin being used to fund terrorism. Governments war on drugs results in money spent on MDMA going to people involved in human trafficking and other fucked up shit. The moral of the story is that it is immoral to support the government so stop paying taxes to them.
-
As far as the troops are concerned: Fuck those ignorant tools of Corporatocracy. Their participation just fuels the system fucking humanity into depravity. Appreciate the thought of empathy though! Is it fair that their ignorance lets them fight for causes far beyond their comprehension? In the grand scheme of things no but that's what happens when you never question anything your government might do. That's what happens when you're a conditioned nationalist the second you're born; for example, reciting a pledge affirming your allegiance to the state, daily.
-
I think you'll find there's a pretty strong moral argument against any drug you can think of, growing marijuana uses electricity, green house gasses smelly hippies etc.
That's more down to prohibition than weed itself though (minus the smelly hippies bit, not sure who to blame there lol). Prohibition has forced weed growing indoors, and turned it into a valuable luxury product. In it's natural environment, it's just another plant, and is perfectly happy with dirt, water and sunlight.
-
Knowing that it funds the Taliban, is it right to use afghan products. Or is it a case of don't give a shit where it comes from as long as it is there. Its funny people call for legalization and yet output from Afghanistan has gone up by 70% since we went in. So in some way the governments (US&UK) is helping the flow. Who's to say they don't line their pockets along the way. Making money on the blood of our boys, I'd like to know if it would put anybody off buying afghan if they really knew what they were buying.
There are a dozen ways to look at this, but for those local Afghanis, growing and harvesting opium poppies is one of the only viable means they have to feed and provide for their families. It is ethical to allow them to starve because of our own hysteria regarding drug use?
Opium production increased because the Taliban were no longer in control to stop it. I think it's a bunch of hype to claim that "drug money" from opium production is funding terrorism in any way whatsoever. I've read no conclusive evidence, only propaganda put forth by the US government to further it's own conflicted agendas...
-
US troops are guarding Afghani opium fields (or used to be at least.. google that shit) because if they were to destroy the opium, they would lose the locals' support as it is their main source of income. If they lose the locals' support, the Taliban gets their support.
US troops guarding that shit? Smoke the fuck up!
-
OP baring in mind the Chinese Triads control about 85% of the safrole supply that makes MDMA but at the same time are responsible for human trafficking and a lot of sex slavery do you think it's moral to take MDMA? What about going to McDonalds and eating a burger when the meat comes from farms that cut vast areas of the amazon rainforest down to graze their cattle?
Precisely. It's "immoral" to basically do anything in Western society, because ultimately murder, cruelty, destruction and criminality are at the heart of most things, unfortunately. Nature is a strange mistress.
-
John Travolta's character Vincent Vega did heroin in Pulp Fiction, so obviously it must be okay. ::)
Do whatever makes you happy, so long as it doesn't impede on anyone else's happiness. That's my opinion. :)
-
I've read no conclusive evidence, only propaganda put forth by the US government to further it's own conflicted agendas...
I have, but it's no more insidious than the jurisdictions that the Taliban preside over taxing poppy growers like shady Afghan government officials would do out of earshot from the US government anyway. Karzai's brother (before getting murdered by his bodyguard) was the biggest dope pushing warlord in the country with the racket he ran on poppy growers.
-
Ummm.... The opium fields being burnt by the previous Afghan regime is one of the leading causes for the war.
This is a little conspiratorial and I wouldn't go that far. The Taliban were actually US allies before 911 and US awarded them with hundreds of millions of dollars in aid for their stringent and successful poppy eradication program's assistance in the War on Drugs.
Now, did CIA at times utilize profits from assisting setup of manufacturing of poppy to heroin and transporting finished product to lucrative markets like US in order to fund their black ops away from oversight? I think the evidence is very strong that it has. But I also think that's more to do with either rogue CIA officers or CIA as a rogue agency with too much power from being able to operate in the shadows than any implication of overall US policy on the matter.
-
I was just thinking this, more so the huge amount of forest destroyed in SE Asia to make the safrole oil but good point.
I think you'll find there's a pretty strong moral argument against any drug you can think of, growing marijuana uses electricity, green house gasses smelly hippies etc.
Using electricity equals sex slavery ?
Is the data about safrole and triads meant for USA or NL, Limetless ?
-
As far as the troops are concerned: Fuck those ignorant tools of Corporatocracy.
This is a step to far you never bash the troops you bash the people who tell them what to do. Think its easy for them? And their is direct evidence to support that the drug trade is going directly to the Taliban.
-
I don't use opy's btw.
Then I really wouldn't concern myself with the morality issues.
In answer to your question, yes but not on a Wednesday.
-
even if u believe bin laden did 9/11 which is pretty unlikly it had nothing to do with taliban we declared war on them so they should use what ever coin they can get to fight the invaders and theres no al quida there and in 10 years ive never seen a report of nato fighting with al qiuda its always taliban
also without all us smack heads all the poor farmers and there 50 kids would starve so u can look at it like giving money to charity if u want and more of the money will make it to the farmers than it will from your average charity
even the yanks gov thinks saudis are 1 of the biggest supporters of terrorism and they fund most the madrasers in pak which supply a lot of the fighters so are u gonna stop buying petrol that comes from saudi
-
As far as the troops are concerned: Fuck those ignorant tools of Corporatocracy.
This is a step to far you never bash the troops you bash the people who tell them what to do. Think its easy for them? And their is direct evidence to support that the drug trade is going directly to the Taliban.
the taliban control most of afghan and charge farmers a % for protection and tax .so the farmers have to pay it but what do u expect them to do our govs charge tax as well and use the tax to invade and bully and there the afghan gov to most people so they charge tax
we attacked them under the blag of getting bin, our own estimates was only 200 al quida there .the taliban have never been interested in international politics or terrorism just ruling afghan so why do people class them as terrorists if we werent there theres 0% risk of em attacking us, they were freedom fighters when fighting russia who invaded now yanks invade there terrorists for fighting back
the taliban are obviously cunts but that dont make em terrorists they just run shit like saudi and the other strict muslim countries
-
why would you think the heroin helps the taliban? the taliban banned heroin production in 2000 when it was in power, it wasnt until the us invaded again that it started, the taliban hated heroin and gave severe punishments to anyone growing poppies.
The heroin in afghanistan is controlled by several very powerfull warlords who i'm sure dont give a fuck about the taliban, they just want the money and more then likely are allies against the taliban since the taliban banned opium production they essentially fucked over the warlords why do you think so many warlords helped the USA when they invaded, opium production
when the taliban banned opium production it dropped 91% after the invasion production went from 7000 hectares to 193000 hectares.
anyway i'm pretty sure a large amount of american heroin comes from south america now and tar obviously from mexico, afghanistan stuff is mostly turned into heroin 3# for european use.
do alittle googling you will find out its quite interesting, heres a link http://www.nowpublic.com/world/after-us-invasion-afghanistan-now-produces-93-worlds-opium
-
According to something I saw on NatGeo:
The poppys are just harvested for their opium. It is then sent off to Iran for production into Heroin. And it was said that Iran has the worlds highest heroin addiction rate. Then it makes its way to Europe.
Anyway, of all the money that is spent on the end product, a very insignificant percentage gets back to the religious "terrorists", the other group which has acquired the terrorist lablel are just some form of international drug smuggling syndicates, more likely interested in profits than ideology.
Just know that what you spend on it don't amount to a fart in a tornado. Just enjoy your dope!
Why the fuck do the Mexicans make BTH?
I love that the Columbians treat their poppy goo the old fashioned way!
-
If you believe all the propaganda behind heroin and the Taliban then don't buy the stuff, buy some china white instead..........
But really if you have issues buying a product because it was produced by terrorists then make sure to double check the producers of some big super market brands, high street fashion labels and general house hold names.
-
I remember reading some where when the US was occupying Afghanistan and all that shit, Donald Rumsfeld supported one of the biggest poppy growers in the region, because they were an enemy of the Taliban, who were for limiting the number of poppy fields.
The US government is full of shiiiiit.
What blows me away though, is that its common knowledge our government is full of shit, yet what do we do about it?
-
What blows me away though, is that its common knowledge our government is full of shit, yet what do we do about it?
You can Occupy it. ;)
-
What blows me away though, is that its common knowledge our government is full of shit, yet what do we do about it?
You can Occupy it. ;)
Congress has about a 20% approval rating, yet incumbents are almost always reelected. The problem isn't with the American government, it is what WE have let it become. The problem rests within the hearts of ignorant Americans...
Take the country back to where 25 year old property owners were the only ones who could vote (and it wouldn't be bad if it were just males at that) and the government would take on a much better roll in my way of thinking.
-
Take the country back to where 25 year old property owners were the only ones who could vote (and it wouldn't be bad if it were just males at that) and the government would take on a much better roll in my way of thinking.
Is there any evidence that property owning males vote less stupidly than the general populace?
-
Take the country back to where 25 year old property owners were the only ones who could vote (and it wouldn't be bad if it were just males at that) and the government would take on a much better roll in my way of thinking.
Is there any evidence that property owning males vote less stupidly than the general populace?
It's more of voting for you own interests. National governments doesn't exactly work with a country spread across an entire continent. This is why the U.S.S.R didn't succeed.
If only we were a country that voted on it's laws instead of lawmakers, we'd be much better off. Isn't THAT what the idea of true democracy is?
-
Congress has about a 20% approval rating, yet incumbents are almost always reelected. The problem isn't with the American government, it is what WE have let it become. The problem rests within the hearts of ignorant Americans...
I think it's more than that. Right now things have reverted back to the days of taxation without representation. After getting elected, instead of representing the constituents that elected them, congress members spend all their time catering to the special interests that funded their campaigns. This is out of necessity, as running a successful campaign these days requires big time funding. That's why it's ceased to matter who is elected, because once they are they still have to kiss the ass of special interests and ignore the people once they are. This is why the entire system is fucked and the only way out of it is to demand the removal of special interest money in politics so the members you elect can get back to addressing your concerns instead of being owned by corporations.
Take the country back to where 25 year old property owners were the only ones who could vote (and it wouldn't be bad if it were just males at that) and the government would take on a much better roll in my way of thinking.
Sure because you're a male property owner over the age of 25, what better way to ensure your interests are best represented than to exclude everyone else from the voting process? You couldn't even in theory call the country a democracy anymore though. It would be a landed aristocracy at best.
-
As far as the troops are concerned: Fuck those ignorant tools of Corporatocracy.
Lmfao@u.
Have some respect for people who sacrifice so much to uphold our way of life.
-
As far as the troops are concerned: Fuck those ignorant tools of Corporatocracy.
Lmfao@u.
Have some respect for people who sacrifice so much to uphold our way of life.
That kool aid must be tasting pretty nice eh?
-
Take the country back to where 25 year old property owners were the only ones who could vote (and it wouldn't be bad if it were just males at that) and the government would take on a much better roll in my way of thinking.
Is there any evidence that property owning males vote less stupidly than the general populace?
It's more of voting for you own interests.
Well, not my interests, considering that I don't fall into the set of 25+ male property owners. But really I was just being facetious, because his idea is so ridiculous.
I'd never waste my time voting anyway.
-
Congress has about a 20% approval rating, yet incumbents are almost always reelected. The problem isn't with the American government, it is what WE have let it become. The problem rests within the hearts of ignorant Americans...
I think it's more than that. Right now things have reverted back to the days of taxation without representation. After getting elected, instead of representing the constituents that elected them, congress members spend all their time catering to the special interests that funded their campaigns. This is out of necessity, as running a successful campaign these days requires big time funding. That's why it's ceased to matter who is elected, because once they are they still have to kiss the ass of special interests and ignore the people once they are. This is why the entire system is fucked and the only way out of it is to demand the removal of special interest money in politics so the members you elect can get back to addressing your concerns instead of being owned by corporations.
Take the country back to where 25 year old property owners were the only ones who could vote (and it wouldn't be bad if it were just males at that) and the government would take on a much better roll in my way of thinking.
Sure because you're a male property owner over the age of 25, what better way to ensure your interests are best represented than to exclude everyone else from the voting process? You couldn't even in theory call the country a democracy anymore though. It would be a landed aristocracy at best.
1) You're wrong. These days it is representation without taxation. Right at 50% of Americans pay no income tax. One might argue anyone working pays the FICA taxes, but those aren't typical revenue, as they are paying for services (social security and medicare) that all citizens will receive later in life.
This kind of blends into my next point...
2) When a person has little or no stake in the country, they shouldn't vote. Obviously there is the modern equivalent to "property owner" could be one who is employees without being on any form of government assistance.
When a person can improve their financial situation by going to the ballot box, things happen. They end up voting to remove property from their neighbors, and spread it amongst themselves.
In the beginning of this country, we chose the property owner status because they had some skin in the game, and two, they were more successful people, and therefore typically more intelligent and paid closer attention to whats going on politically.
The Greeks actually considered democracy a bad form of government, it is taking republican government to the extreme (notice the lack of big "R or D") in a bad way.
As someone once said, and to sum up my point: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner."
-
Better to fund the Taliban than the big Pharma companies. Those guys are evil. ;)
I agree.. Maybe big pharmas are more evil than the talibans, but i guess that in both case money go in someone's cash anywhere in the USA.. I bet someone closer to CIA or government vertices
-
As far as the troops are concerned: Fuck those ignorant tools of Corporatocracy.
Lmfao@u.
Have some respect for people who sacrifice so much to uphold our way of life.
What the fuck ? Soldiers the brave saviors ? Brainwashed much ?
-
I've not read the replies so this may have been covered:
But every time you pretty much anything (except drugs). Whatever country you're in taxes you on that purchase. These taxes are spent on many things. But one of them is their 'defense' budget. The weird thing about governments is they have no idea that 'defense' and 'offense' are different things.
We've all funded the creation and maintenance of nuclear weapons. Our elders have funded their research and invention. Every bad thing in the world today is made possible because of governmental tax and research.
And if you believe the tin hatters, the afghan heroin industry is CIA controlled anyway. So if anything, you're funding a local farmer in afghan, and America.
If the ethical consequences are your main worry whilst mainlining heroine, you need to stop being a hippy.
-
As far as the troops are concerned: Fuck those ignorant tools of Corporatocracy.
Lmfao@u.
Have some respect for people who sacrifice so much to uphold our way of life.
What the fuck ? Soldiers the brave saviors ? Brainwashed much ?
Im just saying to have some respect. Ive lost some good friends and that type of shit pisses me off.
-
As far as the troops are concerned: Fuck those ignorant tools of Corporatocracy. Their participation just fuels the system fucking humanity into depravity. Appreciate the thought of empathy though! Is it fair that their ignorance lets them fight for causes far beyond their comprehension? In the grand scheme of things no but that's what happens when you never question anything your government might do. That's what happens when you're a conditioned nationalist the second you're born; for example, reciting a pledge affirming your allegiance to the state, daily.
The anger and ignorance baffles me. Many of these "ignorant tools of Corporatocracy" are simply joining the force as a way out. Check the demographics of the troops, bro. Minorities and poor people looking for a viable option, mainly. And hell, it IS a viable option. You should be fucking ashamed of yourself for insulting people dying in the field of battle while you sit on your computer and rage against the machine via abridged versions of political philosophies that are super cutting edge and alternative. Although there was no reason for us to "go to war" in the first place, it happened. I don't support the war but I sure as fuck support our troops; many of which are coming back with scars we can't see or even begin to comprehend. While their participation fuels the flame, it also makes it so your sorry ass doesn't get drafted when their aren't any troops because they're too busy raging like you. These men and women are fucking heros. Go fuck yourself.
Anywho, sorry for going off topic. The whole 'is it moral/ isnt it moral' thing can be applied to many drugs, as someone mentioned earlier. Seems like a similar dilemma to buying a diamond, really. If you find it immoral, you can do your part by not buying H. However, being the pessimist I am, I would have to say that ain't gonna do shit...youre a grain of sand on a beach...
-
1) You're wrong. These days it is representation without taxation. Right at 50% of Americans pay no income tax. One might argue anyone working pays the FICA taxes, but those aren't typical revenue, as they are paying for services (social security and medicare) that all citizens will receive later in life.
Oh I'm wrong now am I? Let's just ignore sales, excise, and payroll taxes that every working American is forced to pay so you can make your fictional claim of 50% "representation without taxation". FICA might not be an "income tax" per se, but it's still considered a regressive tax on earned income. You also conveniently ignore my point that the representation these days is piss poor because elected officials have to spend so much time raising money and representing corporate special interests that largely fund their campaigns instead of the individual interests of those that elected them. Like I said, taxation without representation. Taxes come in all shapes and sizes. It's not just "income tax".
2) When a person has little or no stake in the country, they shouldn't vote. Obviously there is the modern equivalent to "property owner" could be one who is employees without being on any form of government assistance.
I'll assume you meant "one who is employed w/o being on any form of government assistance". So all those hard working citizens who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs during the economic downturn and needed to collect unemployment should, according to you, lose their right to vote and have their voices represented in congress because as far as you're concerned they have "little to no stake in the country". Most would see that reasoning as callous and absurd.
When a person can improve their financial situation by going to the ballot box, things happen. They end up voting to remove property from their neighbors, and spread it amongst themselves.
FYI, this country was not just founded on democratic principles but also built on CAPITALISM. So please do cite some examples in a capitalist society that practices representative democracy like ours where voters have taken property away from their neighbors in order to spread it among themselves. And no, I don't consider cases of eminent domain to be relevant since that serves the public utility (not the same as financial situation) and the owner is fairly compensated, neither of which you mentioned.
In the beginning of this country, we chose the property owner status because they had some skin in the game, and two, they were more successful people, and therefore typically more intelligent and paid closer attention to whats going on politically.
In the beginning of this country, minorities weren't even allowed to own property. A woman lost any right to control property that was hers prior to marriage, nor did she have rights to acquire any property during marriage. So first, I'm not sure what you mean by "skin in the game". Were these white landowning elite more invested in the country than the landless laborers and minorities that worked backbreaking hours in virtual slave labor that had nowhere else to go? It seems like the landowners were the ones with the resources to make real choices on whether to leave the country should things get bad and the slave laborers had a ton more "skin in the game" since they didn't have any options and were stuck here.
And of course the male, white landowning elite were more successful and intelligent because they could vote to have their interests represented and ensure anyone with competing interests stay disenfranchised. They also had far more incentive to pay attention politically because only they were allowed to vote, so no surprise that they did while it's much harder to pay attention when you're just struggling to survive. What you just described is known as elitism. Was that your point?
The Greeks actually considered democracy a bad form of government, it is taking republican government to the extreme (notice the lack of big "R or D") in a bad way.
When it first evolved, yes, it was considered a bad idea. But over time it came to be considered one of three good forms of government (along with monarchy and aristocracy) as opposed to the three bad forms of tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy.
But regardless, ancient Greeks also practiced slavery so what's your point? Are you suggesting Ancient Greece be held up as the apex of civilization that modern societies should aspire? Or is this your not so subtle way of playing apologist for elitism and suggesting we transition to aristocracy?
As someone once said, and to sum up my point: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner."
Not sure I agree with that description but I'm getting the distinct impression that your ideal form of government involves two wolves and many sheep with only the two wolves getting to decide what to eat for dinner and you being one of the wolves.
-
Keep on banging the bin laden brown :D
-
the taliban may charge tax but the northern alliance have always been much bigger players in the h market and u guessed it there are friends
afghan no4 was pretty much un heard of wasnt it(not 100% sure)before the invasion .it was for no3 and since the invasion production went up big time yet all europes no3 is shit and uk stuff can only be classed as fake now which is wierd
i think afghan makes a lot of no4 now and most of the stuff here is all afghan so i reckon the afghans have started doing much more for usa market which really isnt a suprise or coincidence it was always gonna happen when they invaded,the usa probably taught the druglords how to do the extra production steps so it was suitable for there market
-
Its imposable to spend money without in eventually passing through some unethical people or business. I gave up worrying a long time ago. Pay your taxes - some money may go to fund a war, give to charity - some could go to corrupt third world officials, buy heroin - some may go towards funding the next terrorist plot, even buy something from your local shop - maybe the shop owner will spend it on child porn.
It's all connected in thousands of ways, one giant pool were all swimming in.
-
In a direct response to the thread title question. Is it really realistic to expect a junky to give a flying fuck whether his next fix comes from Mexico, the Golden Triangle, the Golden Crescent or Afghanistan? Call me a cynical old bastard but I highly doubt John the Junky who is clucking like a bastard and scratching at their arm like they are sandpapering a door is going to stop and think "Hang on a second Mr Dealer, I don't think I shall be buying this Smack unless A. it wasn't produced to fund the Taliban and B. the product is bought under the fair trade standards to support the poppy growers."
LOL...I think that perhaps people forget the grim realities of things outside SR just because SR allows drugs to be sold like they should be. Just isn't how the world works.
-
i kind of think that moral and the use of heroine are two different things, can someone explain why people use the drug knowing that it kills such a huge percent of its users?
-
i kind of think that moral and the use of heroine are two different things, can someone explain why people use the drug knowing that it kills such a huge percent of its users?
Isn't that obvious? Because it's a way to push the button and blot the world out, some people use drugs for this reason just like some people use drugs to have fun and some use them to get better from illnesses. It's all about the individuals state of mind.
-
In a direct response to the thread title question. Is it really realistic to expect a junky to give a flying fuck whether his next fix comes from Mexico, the Golden Triangle, the Golden Crescent or Afghanistan? Call me a cynical old bastard but I highly doubt John the Junky who is clucking like a bastard and scratching at their arm like they are sandpapering a door is going to stop and think "Hang on a second Mr Dealer, I don't think I shall be buying this Smack unless A. it wasn't produced to fund the Taliban and B. the product is bought under the fair trade standards to support the poppy growers."
Too true, although one that for some reason I hadn't even considered. I was looking at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't want the purchase of a certain product that supports actions and ideals that one is strongly opposed weighing heavily on the conscience, which, even as an issue of degree, I find ridiculous enough on its own.
But the real reason to want to do something like this is the hope that, should enough people likewise make a similar statement that it would effect real change. This is what turns the whole issue into a farce since there is NO chance that some junky worried about getting sick is going to care who the poppies are supporting as long as it's genuine. Kind of makes you wonder about the motives of the OP.
-
In a direct response to the thread title question. Is it really realistic to expect a junky to give a flying fuck whether his next fix comes from Mexico, the Golden Triangle, the Golden Crescent or Afghanistan? Call me a cynical old bastard but I highly doubt John the Junky who is clucking like a bastard and scratching at their arm like they are sandpapering a door is going to stop and think "Hang on a second Mr Dealer, I don't think I shall be buying this Smack unless A. it wasn't produced to fund the Taliban and B. the product is bought under the fair trade standards to support the poppy growers."
Too true, although one that for some reason I hadn't even considered. I was looking at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't want the purchase of a certain product that supports actions and ideals that one is strongly opposed weighing heavily on the conscience, which, even as an issue of degree, I find ridiculous enough on its own.
But the real reason to want to do something like this is the hope that, should enough people likewise make a similar statement that it would effect real change. This is what turns the whole issue into a farce since there is NO chance that some junky worried about getting sick is going to care who the poppies are supporting as long as it's genuine. Kind of makes you wonder about the motives of the OP.
Exactly my point. :)
-
"Hang on a second Mr Dealer, I don't think I shall be buying this Smack unless A. it wasn't produced to fund the Taliban and B. the product is bought under the fair trade standards to support the poppy growers."
I for one love your sarcasm all around the site. The morality of all drugs can be questioned, why does everyone single out H?
-
"Hang on a second Mr Dealer, I don't think I shall be buying this Smack unless A. it wasn't produced to fund the Taliban and B. the product is bought under the fair trade standards to support the poppy growers."
I for one love your sarcasm all around the site. The morality of all drugs can be questioned, why does everyone single out H?
Oh no I'm not just singling out Smack here mate, I am just discussing it specifically in relation to the thread because the OP is discussing Afghan's number 1 export.
Doesn't matter if it's a Crack'ed, Ice-monkey, Benzo-kid, Speed-freak, Coke-demon or your plain of Gin-soaked-wino. None of them are going to give a poultry fuck where the next hit/pill/dose/pint/shot/smoke blah blah comes from because that doesn't come into it when you are an addict. The only thing they may complain about is if it's crap product.
-
"Hang on a second Mr Dealer, I don't think I shall be buying this Smack unless A. it wasn't produced to fund the Taliban and B. the product is bought under the fair trade standards to support the poppy growers."
I for one love your sarcasm all around the site. The morality of all drugs can be questioned, why does everyone single out H?
Oh no I'm not just singling out Smack here mate, I am just discussing it specifically in relation to the thread because the OP is discussing Afghan's number 1 export.
Doesn't matter if it's a Crack'ed, Ice-monkey, Benzo-kid, Speed-freak, Coke-demon or your plain of Gin-soaked-wino. None of them are going to give a poultry fuck where the next hit/pill/dose/pint/shot/smoke blah blah comes from because that doesn't come into it when you are an addict. The only thing they may complain about is if it's crap product.
Yeah I quoted you for the laughs man, I know John the Junky could be any type of addict lol
-
HEY! I know John the Junky, he's alright.
And, believe it or not, he is quiet the ethical buyer when it comes to Junk!
If it goes to fund the Taliban, he would rather spend a week in withdrawal! He only took up Heroin to support the Chinese farmers (who work dam hard by the way). John is thinking of investing in Columbia and becoming a coke head too. In fact he does alot to support fledgling economies in far flung corners of the globe! John the Junky is all about the fair trade movement.
Support a foreign farmer, take drugs! Remember, it's all tax free, so at least we're not supporting any wars ect.
I shouldn't write this shit late at night after taking some R and R! Give me some karma, positive or negative and you future luck will be changed as a result! :) :o ??? :P ;)
-
Why wouldn't it be?
-
In a direct response to the thread title question. Is it really realistic to expect a junky to give a flying fuck whether his next fix comes from Mexico, the Golden Triangle, the Golden Crescent or Afghanistan? Call me a cynical old bastard but I highly doubt John the Junky who is clucking like a bastard and scratching at their arm like they are sandpapering a door is going to stop and think "Hang on a second Mr Dealer, I don't think I shall be buying this Smack unless A. it wasn't produced to fund the Taliban and B. the product is bought under the fair trade standards to support the poppy growers."
Lets just assume for one second that John the Junky tells his dealer that under no circumstances will he buy any heroine that originates from Afghanistan (the single biggest producer in the world) the dealer is just going to tell him it comes from Mexico. Its not like John is ever really going to find out!
-
In a direct response to the thread title question. Is it really realistic to expect a junky to give a flying fuck whether his next fix comes from Mexico, the Golden Triangle, the Golden Crescent or Afghanistan? Call me a cynical old bastard but I highly doubt John the Junky who is clucking like a bastard and scratching at their arm like they are sandpapering a door is going to stop and think "Hang on a second Mr Dealer, I don't think I shall be buying this Smack unless A. it wasn't produced to fund the Taliban and B. the product is bought under the fair trade standards to support the poppy growers."
Lets just assume for one second that John the Junky tells his dealer that under no circumstances will he buy any heroine that originates from Afghanistan (the single biggest producer in the world) the dealer is just going to tell him it comes from Mexico. Its not like John is ever really going to find out!
LOL John wouldn't give a fuck anyway. He'd be clucking like a bitch and needing a fix, could be grown at the bottom of a shit-pit for all John cares. Harsh but true.
-
Last I heard John was sucking dicks for his next fix
-
Very few people in real life give a shit about trading ethics. They SAY they do, but when you as the to pay EXTRA for ethically sourced produce, all for a sudden ethics is out the window for shire economic market forces. This is true in all areas of product supply in a 'free' market. Do you want these ethically sourced paving stones at THREE times the price of the 'un'ethically sourced ones which are sometimes a superior product? Nine times out of ten people are not willing to pay for it when it comes down to it. Sad, but understandable.
And I know that a Heroin user can feel completely ostracized from their community. Dirty looks everywhere, no one willing to give you a chance. People openly stating (family members included) that the world would be a better place without you. The lowest of the low in societies eyes.
This all generates a 'Fuck You' attitude within the addict as he/she starts to slowly believe in their own worthlessness. You tell someone they are a piece of shit often enough and for long enough and they will start to believe it.
I'm not saying it's right, but, how can you expect someone who doesn't care about themselves to care if it is moral to use afghan heroin?
-
wtf is morality?
Honestly I don't think it matters dude, unless you have some patriotic conscious or something.
-
fuck yeah. U.S. not only wages the drug war against it's own citizens but also in the Middle East, South and Central America. It's a very big money maker.
If they were really concerned about funding the Taliban, we would grow it here and give people access to it so none of the money goes to Afghanistan. The Government needs the Taliban because we need an enemy.
-
OP, ridiculous, you're being suckered in by the pro-west, pro-war statist position of the US government. Open your eyes and don't swallow everything you read. There is no black and white, friend.
MockFrog
-
fuck yeah. U.S. not only wages the drug war against it's own citizens but also in the Middle East, South and Central America. It's a very big money maker.
If they were really concerned about funding the Taliban, we would grow it here and give people access to it so none of the money goes to Afghanistan. The Government needs the Taliban because we need an enemy.
The Al Queda was actually for controlling the number of Poppy fields, and stopping them from growing more.
When Donald Rumsfeld and the big men sent our guys over there, we joined forces with war lords who were in the Poppy biz. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, no?
Once we started getting rid of the Al Queda, Poppy production increased.
There's actually a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with one of Afghanistans biggest poppy growers...
If that's not hypocrisy, i don't what is.