The War on Drugs

Here's a TV show I found devoted to the subject.  It is divided into three parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31mjvdPP7dQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HgrAuvUvtg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72viXhsKU-M

4chan=A hive for Social Rejects.
I guess this is why everyone is posting all this marijuana stuff, I agree, but there are more important matters than recreational drug use, right?

>>2
You fail.  There is a lot more to why War on Drugs is bad than simply "omg drugs r illegul, i cant get high now"

>>3
You failed because you pressumed shit about me. Yes I understand about growing hemp and the invasion of civil liberties etc etc, I also know there's worse shit going on.

The "War On Drugs" is one of the largest nails in the coffin of the American Republic.  Repeal all drug-usage laws immediately!  What a man chooses to grow and mix, then sniff, ingest or inject, is entirely his business and is NONE of ours.

>>4
>pressumed
>pressumed
>pressumed
>pressumed
>pressumed
>pressumed
>pressumed

>>6
Oh wow, you beat me on a typo, I guess you win.
/sarcasm.

>>4
"You failed because you pressumed shit about me. Yes I understand about growing hemp and the invasion of civil liberties etc etc, I also know there's worse shit going on."

After seeing the following statement:

"I agree, but there are more important matters than recreational drug use, right?"

That was not apparent.  Your emphasis on the recreational aspects of prohibition leads me to the mindset that made me post my comments here >>3.

And anyways, what is more important than our civil liberties? Would it bother you if the USA turned into China in terms of civil liberties? You say there is "worse shit going on".  What?

>>8
You answered the question yourself, IN China.

>>9

Who gives a fuck? This is the logic that reactionary knee-jerking retarded faggots adhere to. [/u]Newflash![/u] We are not China. I don't care about what Chinese people allow their government to do to them. I care about my country and what wrong doings my government is perpetuating upon me.

How will caring about China's borderline fascist state aid mine that is slowly becoming the same way? I realize that you wanna save the world and everything, sweetheart, I really-really do. But your reasoning is no doubt mired in mensie blood and condoms filled with your father's sperm (layed out upon your backside).

Your thinking is completely fucking backwards. 

>>10
Now you can shut the fuck up, you're going too far, not only presuming what I believe in AGAIN but insulting me, you're thinking for everyone else aren't you?

Well funnily enough the Chinese economy affects OUR economy. The fact is, America is becoming much like China (except ofcourse, minimum wage, but immigrant labour is still cheap).

Yes banning marijuana is a big hit on our liberties, but there are tons of other things the government has been doing which affects our liberties, and it seems to me that you are so blind-sighted about bud you ignore the wars and such (one reason why Nixon did the war on drugs, exactly what the media is doing, diverting peoples attention).

Also, You're thinking is fucking backwards you cunt, 'oh noes i'm a middle class cunt with no problems but they won't let me smoke waccy baccy, this is the worst thing ever' Get your priorities right and put yourself into perspective.

(I'm only like this because you acting like every other 4chan lowlife troll and did your whole patronising act in your great big ivory tower, yeah, that's the reason why you have no friends).

>>11

Ho ho ho, looks like I struck a nerd-nerve. You seem to be caught up in some endless shit-vortex of stupidity. Allow me to enlighten you.

1. This is the first time I've ever addressed you on these boards. That just goes to the show that I'm not the only one who thinks you're only 3 IQ points off from, oh I don't know, a warm bagel that some 11-year old jew uses as a masturbatory aide. (And that went right over your fucking head)

2. America is becoming more like China because Americans aren't  holding fast to our own core beliefs.  Sure, solving "the China problem" would probably be a good idea overall. But only to a short-sighted lamebrain. Our fight begins at home and ends abroad not the other way around. That's how we got into this own Iraq business in the first place. China gets away with what it does in the name of multinational corporate and economic interests. Nothing more, nothing less. Which brings me to my next point...

3. The war on drugs is a hit to our liberties not because I just NEED to toke on a bong while you toke on my THC-laced dick. But because it props up a system used further subjugate the commonwealth. They haven't figured out a legitimate and socially accepted way to control it and tax it, so it's illegal and revenue is instead generated via small time users and dealers being thrown into Million-Dollar Maxi-Prisons popping up quicker than Mega-Malls in Fairfax.

You see, if they can't tax us directly, they'll tax us from behind. You're familiar with that position aren't you? It's that position your dad uses when he doesn't want to look at your snarly grill. BITCH.

All that money goes into the pockets' pockets of guys who own the federal reserve, running those multi-national corporations and running America into the dirt.

Finally: I'm Low Income. And if reaming your fat bacon-fed ass with information means that I have no friends. Then I guess it's a life of Jack Daniels, public access television and raping your sluts like yourself out of frustration. Given the current socio-cultural climate...that's something I can live with.

>>12

By the way, not only do they keep the laws in place that fill up those prisons that desperately need paying for...but they're also enabling the drug-dealers while skimming a little cream off the top for themselves.

What you simply don't fucking understand is that a vast amount of the rights issues in this country are all inter-woven. The myriad of issues all feed the system in one way or another. I guess it brings a whole new meaning to the word diversify, dunnit?

>>12
>>13
You're the fucking idiot because you don't realize I agree with the legalization of hemp and all the reasons so, now you've just been calling me an idiot and you havn't though of a Counter arguement, just Ad Hominems and points that I don't disagree with.
Raping sluts myself? gb2/prison/ where you can be assraped for the rest of your fucking life, also it's not a nerd-nerve it's the fact the I feel like dealing with scum like you, learn some fucking respect, especially because my father is dead and I could most likely beat your puny ass up.

I'm just fed up with every last post in here being about weed, infact, the last time I had a big reefer was yesterday but that doesn't mean all I want to talk about is hemp, I'm not a fucking hippy.

Seriously, you guys REALLY DON'T need drugs to be happy.

If you're that depressed, fucking kill yourselves.

>>15
No, they just make life...more interesting.
You don't need your computer to be happy, would you be happy if your government banned that?

>>16

Yeah maybe then I could go outside and have a life for once.

You still can...

We can do anything with Hemp, we can build entire cities out of Hemp. They just won't let us.

Anyone who uses drugs for recreational use to get "fucked up" or "high" is a complete moron and deserves nothing more than to jump off a cliff into a pit of fire and die.

And who are you to decide who is to live or die?

>>14

Dumb bitch is DUMB. Whether or not your want weed legalize is IRRELEVANT. Your assertion was that: "Problems in China are more important than invalidating the drug war (and the infringement of civil liberties) in America."

I just refuted the fuck out of that statement and you've produce no convincing argument to the contrary. I realize, it's all about "feelings" for you. But *feeling* and *believing* you're correct, doesn't make you correct at all.

My advice: Go back to #2 and #3 in >>12. Remove the character attacks and address the information presenting in a convincing manner. Otherwise: GTFO cunt

>>19
I want to see an entire city built out of hemp.

In all seriousness, though, there is a movement among farmers in the Dakotas to legalize hemp (which has almost no THC). Isn't it kind of strange that you can be arrested for growing a plant that has absolutely no use as a drug?

There's a war?!

>>22
My character attacks were put in after yours, now I see you're carrying on with them. I don't think problems in China invalidate the drug war, I still don't think you get what I mean in my original statement, try re-reading it. I'm saying that we've had what, 10 threads of legalizing marijuana and 0 of the past devastations in China, it kinda makes this board one sided and boring, I'd rather talk about much harsher realities than some minor prohibitation law in another country (I'm not American). I think this board should be varied as to make it a bit more interesting and what, universal?

Aslo, Captain Obvious time, This is the dumbest fucking thread here, no discussion but just idiots with Low EQ's thinking they're perfect.

>>25
>>26

I get all that. It still takes absolutely nothing from what I've said thus far. Worrying about China IS NOT serving civil liberty issues in EITHER of our countries. China is the way it is because of the plethora of civil liberty issues in BOTH of our countries.

Understand: The same infrastructure and systematic mechanisms that keeps gays from getting married, keeps drug use illegal, keeps unfairly taxing the commonwealth are the SAME mechanisms that keep China's facist government in place. STILL DON'T GET IT? LET ME PUT IT IN CAPS.

THE WAR ON DRUGS DIRECTLY FUNDS THE MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATE SYSTEMS THAT KEEPS CHINA'S LEADERS IN PLACE.

You see, you're just failing all over...because in addition to this, I happen to know that the Chinese only care about 'The Chinese' and the only reason they haven't outrightly resisted is because they think the current system in place will lead their country to being a number 1 superpower. China has always been this way. So nevermind the FACT that 'Britain and the US and every other power in the world WANTS China to stay just the way it is for business.

And seriously, do you think TALK TALK TALKING about China is helping? At all? If you want to liberate those people then maybe you should put an army together and get to fuckin' work, EH?

>>27
I only talked about China because someone else mentioned it, so I followed suit. But this is what this place is, discussion, I'm not here to help, I'm here to judge and to hear other peoples opinions for my own self-development (the only self-productive reason for debating, as I see it). Liberating them?, they can liberate themselves, I'm not some missionary, I don't convert, it's up to themselves, but I can judge. The thing is, Democracy would not work in China, the world just doesn't work that way.

Now I'm going to have to put what I mean in capitals.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF MY POST WAS TO STATE THAT MARIJUANA IS NOT EVERYTHING.

Because this thread is so inane, I shall make a thread with other corruptions invading our civil liberties.

THE WAR ON DRUGS DIRECTLY FUNDS THE MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATE SYSTEMS THAT KEEPS CHINA'S LEADERS IN PLACE.


can someone explain this part

>>29
I thought it was a bit inane myself.
I've heard the war on drugs has been profitable though because when they raid dealers/growers they normally take alot of what they own or give fines or something. I don't know how it travels to China though, i'd liek to see sources on that.

>>29
>>30

what is there to understand? china is the way it is because of the u.s government allows it. the u.s government and the rest of the west is for the most part run by corporate interests. the u.s government is behind the war on drugs.....etc

i don't get it. do you guys think all the incidents in the world are isolated and separate issues? FDR said that in politics that there are no 'accidents' or 'isolated incidents'.

get a clue, guys

>>28

Typical western attitude. It doesn't help your development if you're doing so based off the wrong shit, dum-dum. It doesn't matter if "pot isn't everything", you keep repeating that shit over and over like it's supposed to actually fucking mean something but it doesn't. Like >>31 said, all the shit that's going on isn't happenstance all these issues are one in the same and atypically have the same source.

>>32
What an asshat.

>>33
I WEAR A FUCKING ASS ON MY HEAD AS A FUCKING HAT YOU FUCK

>>32
>>34
Where is the proof for this retarded conspiracy in the first place? I can think of 100s of alternate explanations for many of the anomalies this hypothesis hinges on.

>>35

Then what are they? We've been basing our voting patterns and our approach to politics off of your retarded "100s of alternate explanations" for the last 100 or so years. Where has it gotten us? My advice is that you look into the history of 19th century America. You can start by googling "Corporate Personhood".

>>36
For a start lack of border security could be more to do with the liberal vote base who want a more loose border policy with Mexico.

>>37

Fail. The loose border policy serves corporate interests in that they need the cheap labour. If the citizenry would work for pennies an hour there would be no debate about "border policy". Next.

>>38
Partial fail.  Talk to some of these fucking yuppie Liberals sometime.  Literally, they want cheap labor to flood the nation since they are looking forward to having servants and workers take care of them in their retirements.  I shit you not; this has been stated to me in as many words several times, and is in line with their other statements (which when dissected, depend upon cheap labor).

The Libfags and the Corpfags are literally aligned almost perfectly on the issue of uncontrolled immigration.  They don't want borders.  Think of each Libfag as a tiny corporation, with a tiny sphere of authorization, a tiny credit line, and a tiny elitist attitude.  Each yuppie fucker is like a tiny corporation and acts in much the same way.

Once legions of these yuppies lose their jobs and have to actually work side by side in the figurative fields with the beaners, THEN they'll change their tune.  But, not UNTIL then, alas.  Until then, as long as millions of yuppies are on the power-side of the desk, they lurves them some illegal aliens!

>>39

No. It's completely and total, 100% uncut fail. It's...quaint that you still adhere to this "libs vs cons" bullshit. But the fact of the matter is there are only market interests and non-market interests. The partisan line drawn is dress up for corporate personhood unchecked. This isn't a debatable matter, either you're drinking the Kool-Aid or you're not.

>>40
Heh, well put.

I haven't met a "zOMG liberal!!1!" who is in favour of open borders, and I'm surrounded by people whose inclinations fall heavily on that side. Maybe this group is amazingly exceptional, or maybe >>39 is full of it.

So, how's that in-group echo-chamber doing, RedCream? GO TEAM (fapfapfap)!

>>41

From my experience, I've met more Republicans (read:Friedmanites) in favor of open boarders than I have met YAY MULTICULTURALISM Liberals praising open boarders.

>>40
>>41
Further fails.  I spoke about the elites, and SPECIFICALLY identified them as monied corporations and yuppies, but YOU fags drew the inference that that identification is only partisan politics.  Eat a dick with a boiling-oil chaser.

>>42 at least identified that "YAY MULTICULTURALISM Liberals" exist.  They are out in there in great numbers, undermining the basic notion of nationalism.  With all their education, you'd THINK that they'd understand that globalism doesn't work for the masses as they allegedly claim.  Globalism merely ensures that adherents end up living in a Third World environment, where the tiny few take jets and cars over and past the hordes of desperate poor.

Fuck the war on drugs.  My body, my property, my choice bitches.  Hands off. 

>>43

Hm. No doubt they call you RedCream because of the mixture of jizz and ass blood that leaks down your pants leg in your wake. Using the term "liberal" or "conservative" is and always has been automatic fail. Sorry, gayboy, but you can't bold and italic your way out of this one.

Furthermore, if you believe in "Multiculturist Liberals" then you - in effect - are adhering to the "party vs party" concept via use of faggotry-laden terms. If you believe in the two party war, just say it. Don't try and change your reply just because you got caught with your mouth around your own cock.

I gotta say, RedCream, your posts are really starting to grate on my nerves. You flitter around here like a 50 year old New Jersey queen who just discovered the "New American Century" website. Maybe if you keep so many dicks out of your orifaces you'd have enough oxygen in your brain to form a statement that didn't sound like it was coming right out of the mouth of Nathan Lane.

Do 4chan a favor. Take your retarded slapstick political commentary to CNN, where I assure you it's not only appreciated, but celebrated!

>>45
I don't believe in the Two-Party Duopoly in the sense that I support it.  I merely report it.  However, the gayfaggors on both sides ("two wings on the same bird of prey") complain when they're identified.  This much explains YOUR complaint.

The sad fact of the matter is that regardless of how much you don't like it, "Multiculturist Liberals" are as much a problem for illegal immigration in America as are the CorpFags.  Both are monied elites who have great power to determine the direction of public policy under the control of government apparatus.  The working man is long forgotten to both classes.  Both have the SAME GOAL in mind, for different reasons.  CorpFags want cheap labor (regardless of legality) since it's cheap.  LibFags want the downtrodden masses (regardless of legality) since that fits their deranged view of nationalism.

I'm sure that you're just another LibFag who's looking forward to having a few wetback servants in your condo as you hit your 50s and are looking to retire, as all LibFags do.  The sad truth is that those same wetbacks will steal your shit and leave you bleeding to death like a slaughtered pig in your own hot tub.  Well, until that glorious day of Liberal Blowback -- where the same cities the LibFags fap in, will be burning from the illegal immigrants they allowed in -- I'm here to call you out on your mental illness (since Liberalism is as much a mental illness as Capitalism is).

>>46
oooh burn

Holy shit, anti-chan came out of the woodwork! Against RedCream?

Awesome! The Apocalypse is coming!

Also, since when are "yuppie Liberals" an elite?

>>48
Since Clinton I.

I don't be-- *sound of homosexual cock gagging*

>>49
Clinton wasn't exactly liberal though. He was more old-school conservative, giving a shit about fiscal responsibility.

I think the world is turning upside down.

>>46
>>47
same same

And....yeah, sorry, all I hear is: "Slurp, slurp, slurp, love the cock long time." when you sit down (on a spiked dildo) to type. Your post literally makes no fucking sense in that the only relevant "LibFags" are "CorpFags" by default. Your whole vernacular is fagged up from the ass up. But leave it to you to dice up turds and give them cute little names.

Resorting to "You must be a LibFag" is only yet another indicator of your crippling retardation no doubt brought about from your mom blood-queefing you out of her rathole snatch in a porta-john at a dike parade. Just face it: You sound like a total idiot and the only reason I'm replying is for the fun of dissecting your latent faggotry for future generations. 

I advise you to take what I said about the CNN messageboards to heart. Either that or continue with your usual past-time: Sniffing dude's exercise bike seats at the gym.

>>52
What, do you think you're posting so that 12-yr-olds read this and will be impressed?  CorpFags are the business elite, who are generally Republican.  LibFags are the yuppie sheep who bow to their monied masters, drooling with plans for all that money once they steal some.  When it comes to attacking (or condoning attacking) the working man, both CorpFags and LibFags are the same since the effect it the same.

Evidenced by your bristling, anti-chan, you must also be a LibFag.  I hardly think a CorpFag wastes time on 4chan ... but angsty LibFags are a precise fit.

>>53

so because he says that the dichotomy between liberals and conservatives is an illusionary meme, you continue to force and defend their distinction by calling him a liberal?

that doesn't make any sense.......oh wait! I get it! you're a troll! GOTCHA TROLL! BACK UNDER YOUR BRIDGE!
 

>>53

Being trolled or not, I truly feel nothing but pity for you. In your confusion and sickness you can't even rise above your own partisan talking points while in the middle of discussing the inherent fallacy of partisanship. If you truly agreed with me, there's no way on earth you would've thought to call me a liberal.

I guess if you can't understand something, then it has to go into one of your little categories somewhere so that- instead of having intelligent discourse, you can instead- marginalize and pigeon-hole.

You're just one of those loudmouth types that thinks he has the solution to everyone's problem even though he IS a major contributing factors to the problem. Try figuring out how to get out the figurative realm of your mother's basement before tackling adult discussion.

-ac

>>53
You would think that, but can you explain why LibFags have a propensity towards asshole sucking?