American Suckage

[Toawa]

Hit the streets with poisoned crack that'll kill each and every crackhead within an hour. Painlessly and swiftly put them all out of their misery.

Actually, I've heard (unconfirmed, to me) stories that Bin Laden intended to do exactly that (albeit with cocaine as opposed to crack, but since one comes from the other...), and might have pulled it off, except the Colombian cartels stepped in and said, "Hell No", because it'd destroy the US cocaine market.

[Ghastly]

Yeah I'd have to say Bin Laden's poison cocaine plan is urban legend or at most a pie-in-the-sky plan. Cartels nothing, it simply wouldn't be doable. It would have been an interesting plan to see go through since cocaine is the drug of the rich and the wanna-be rich. Plus there's the trickle down of cocaine used to create crack (although that cocaine is so dilluted and polluted it might no longer be leathal enough to kill off the crackheads).

It would have been pretty amusing in a dark sort of way to see what would happen when all these cokeheads in positions of power suddenly kicked off. It would be interesting to see what sort of financual and political impact that would have had on the US. Particularily if Bush, as is sometimes rumoured, is still a coke user.

The amount of money and planning needed to pull that off is too big even for the likes of Bin Laden. It's more of your James Bond type of villain plan than anything actually doable in reality. With a plan that big and complex the chances of it being discovered before it goes into action would be pretty big too. Great subject for fiction though.

He might have actually had a better chance of doing it with heroine what with all the heroine kingpins in Afghanistan. I doubt though the effect would have been anything as interesting as cocaine since most H junkies tend to be way too fucked up to be functional enough to remain in any sort of position of power too long.

The thing to have a plan like that work is you have to be able to distribute the drug everywhere in the country in mass quantities all at once. Because once word gets out that the drug is going to kill you people are going to be pretty wary of the cheap-as-free drugs. The USA spans too many timezones too meaning you'd have to pick a time of day when all the drug users across the country are active at the same time. You'd also have to have the intelligence to infiltrate all the current drug distribution networks. This is way too much for Bin Laden's crew.

The reality of 911 was it was such and increadably simple and inexpensive plan it's really a mystery that nobody ever did it before. It was also a one shot deal because nobody will ever allow a plane to be hyjacked again no matter how many bombs you say you have onboard.

None of Al-qada's plans have really been that high on the James Bond level of villianry. Any small group of people determined enough to fuck things over and not afraid to die in the process could have just as easily carried out any group of fanatics. They're all basically just variations of the suicide bomber.

The poisoned coke trick would have been a really interesting event to witness though if it was actually successful in killing off all or at least the vast majority of all cokeheads in the US. Bin Laden simply doesn't have the intelligence, planning skills, and resources to pull off such an increadably complex operation.

The US government could probably do it though. Even a rogue agency within the US government could do it.

[Lowky]

With drugs legalizing them would help in that it would keep people away from the truly evil ones. Crack for example is a fucking plight upon society. A friend of mine who is an attourney has told me horror stories about what crack does to a person. He's said that crack has taken perfectly normal people and turned them into monsters who will commit acts in broad daylight that even the most hardened sociopaths he's dealt with would shy away from under cover of darkness. It delivers a mediocre high at best (about the intesity and duration of a headrush) but it is absurdly addictive and completely fucks with your mental wiring. Living in the middle of Hamilton's "Crack Alley" I've seen first hand what crack will do to a neighbourhood and the people in it. It's one of the most fucking evil drugs out there and almost everyone I've known who has gotten into crack got into it the same way. They went to buy weed, the dealer didn't have any, the dealer gave them crack instead to try. Bam. Instant crack head.

Hit the streets with poisoned crack that'll kill each and every crackhead within an hour. Painlessly and swiftly put them all out of their misery. Legalize dope, let people buy and use it in controlled environments. I seriously doubt anyone would chose to use crack if weed was cheaply and readily available.

I have to agree with crack being one of the most evil drugs out there. A friends wife got into it. Actually wound up doing some county jail time for distribution. That is another of the evils of crack. It's such a short lived high, that many of it's users wind up selling it to others to pay for their own supply. Thank the tentacles she seems to continue to be clean. Their are enough trust issues in their marriage now though that I still don't know if it will survive.

[Swordsman3003]

The thing is, a lot of people see what crack does an assume not only that all drugs do the same thing, but that all cause as many problems. Marijuana hasn't nearly the same effects on people or society.

[Gengar003]

Aaaaaaaand here we go. Topic shift from... whatever we were on to marijuana.

I'll let someone else take it, though.

Your sig made me do it!

[Swordsman3003]

It was a self-fulling prophecy.

[Honor]

marijuana is dead easy to produce, comparatively... and thus pretty cheap. Which is good, since the main difference is that marijuana just makes you too lazy and stupid to commit grossly criminal acts to procure it...

And I'm not changing topics... I just don't have the time to write my repsonses to the real topis still in play yet.

[Ghastly]

3:00am and I'm in a dark alley and I'd rather run into a pot head than a crackhead any day of the week.

[Lowky]

3:00am and I'm in a dark alley and I'd rather run into a pot head than a crackhead any day of the week.

Pothead Yo man you got any weed dude.
Ghastly sorry no
Pothead Bummer man, I wish i had me a blunt right now dude. Later man, keep it real man, see ya at 4:20 hu huh hu


Crack head hey dude you got any rocks dude come on man i need a rock
Ghastly I ain't no crack head.
Crackhead <pulls knife> fuck you man give me a rock or your wallet or else

[Myself]

3:00am and I'm in a dark alley and I'd rather run into a pot head than a crackhead any day of the week.

A pothead would either ask if ya got some cheetos or just laugh at you.

A crackhead would try to steal ya wallet and ass rape you for cash

[Honor]

3:00am and I'm in a dark alley and I'd rather run into a pot head than a crackhead any day of the week.

I'll sure as hell second that.

[Indigo Violent]

I live in BC. If I were afraid of potheads I'd never leave home.

[Swordsman3003]

The only thing I have against potheads is the same thing I have against smokers. The heavy smokers stink.

[Swordsman3003]

* I...WILL...NOT...LET.......THIS THREAD DIE! *

[Shirt Guy Xom]

It's in a vegatative state and on life support! Quick, somebody phone the American congress.

[Honor]

I admire the consistency of your position, it's well thought out - a rarity!

Why thank you. You're a right proper daisy yourself.

What actual, measurable costs are you referring to here, and how are they distinct from the financial, time, psychological etc. costs involved in post-natal care?

The actual and measurable costs of pregnancy? There's additional prenatal healthcare, dietary differences, clothing differences, lost work, the physical cost of pregnancy in terms of damage, wear, and injury to the body of the mother, etc, etc. They aren't significantly different from, or (of course) greater than the costs of post-natal care, but that's rather immaterial... Since we can at least assume that if abortion is legal, those saddled with the costs of post natal care will be taking them on by choice. My point is that it's immoral to inflict these costs on a person to protect the rights of another, merely 'potential' person who has neither the means nor the intent to compensate for them.

Tangentially, given that the majority of the population does not in fact subscribe to your moral framework, to what lengths would you be willing to go to support your morality against their objections? That is, constitutional amendments or supreme court ruling in favour of a universal right to abortion. I've always felt that, whatever my personal feelings on abortion, it should not be the responsibility of the judiciary to decide morality - but I'm not American and so don't have that perspective on Roe vs. Wade.

Now this is a delicious and multi-layered question...

The "moral framework" (should we choose to call it that) in question is a combination of several ideas, really... There is the idea that a child is not "human" until some time after birth, there is the idea that a woman should have the option of abortion at her disposal, there is the idea that males should have the same legal freedoms of refusal or parantage as women do...

I agree with what you say, but perhaps not with what you mean... I don't want courts defining morality, but I do want them adjudicating legality... And it's important we don't get the two confused.

Morality is a matter of principal... Right and wrong, good and evil, social acceptability, and other artificial human constructs that allow us to apply unwritten rules of polite behaviour to social interaction. Morality is neither real nor codified in any substantial sense. While it can be said that morality is necessary to the function of society, it's no more or less so than taste or style... Because of it's theoretical nature, there can never be a full agreement on what is or is not moral, and society chugs along just fine under the existence of that ambiguity.

Legality, on the other hand, is a matter of codified social contract, and is absolutely necessary to the smooth function of society. Society cannot function on any level beyond anarchy without the codification of what is and what is not legal.

The judiciary need not (and cannot) define whether or not it is moral for me to have an abortion... Only whether or not it is legal. This is why the majority opinion of the SCOTUS in Roe v Wade speaks of the scientific definitions of life, the external viability of the fetus, and so on, rather than the "morality" of the issue. As the court has essentially held in matters like Flint v United States, Lawrence v Texas, and other cases, whenever the government gets into the business of legislating or adjudicating morality, it is near certain that the rights of someone are going to be wrongly infringed upon.

The problem with the abortion issue lies in zealots... urm... that is to say... "people of exceptionally strong but unfounded opinion" claiming that someone's rights are being infringed upon when there is no one there to have said rights infringed upon. While I can certainly understand and even sympathize with those who have a deep emotional conviction that fetuses are human beings, perhaps because they look so much like little huan beings, or because those people hold fanciful if naive beliefs regarding some supernatural aspect of humanity and the inherant "spirit" or "soul" of human beings and the way they imagine these things to begin at the moment of heavy petting, we can no more take away the rights of real, living, breathing women in order to protect imaginary or potential humans than we can limit traffic over bridges to protect the habitats of imaginary trolls. All we can do is allow those who believe in trolls to avoid driving over bridges late at night.

So, to answer your question... I would not advocate or support a move to codify my views on when a post-natal child becomes a sentient human being... Once the child is born, a parant who no longer wants to raise it has numerous options to relieve herself of that responsibility... We need not legalize abortion to the fourty-third trimester, no matter how much I enjoy joking about it.

I would, however, advocate almost any legal measure to define and enforce the legalities of a man or woman's right to protect themselves biologically and financially from an unwanted pregnancy... Up to and including constitutional amendments, SCOTUS decisions, etc.

The minds of those who do care about this, will not change, and no amount of talk will make it change. The subject is simply too heated to sway the opinion of anyone who actually cares enough to forge their own opinion.

This is patently untrue. I consider this a very important debate, but my opinion has fluctuated repeatedly in response to well-reasoned arguments from both sides.

I have to agree entirely and vociferously here... The fact that some people are certainly too ignorant, unimaginative, pig-headed, conditioned, or just plain stupid to change their minds on subjects of significant importance can never be allowed to be used as an excuse to stop talking about important things. I personally am 100% willing to change my position on any given subject of fact, philosophy, science, or opinion, given new or better information or ideas.