:: NEWS
08/20/2019
08/19/2019
08/18/2019
08/17/2019
|| 11/18/2004 ||
regular_news
Heroin booming in Afghanistan - Heroin production is booming in Afghanistan, undermining democracy and putting money in the coffers of terrorists, according to a UN report today that called on US and NATO-led forces to get more involved in fighting drug traffickers.

"Fighting narcotics is equivalent to fighting terrorism," said Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. "It would be an historical error to abandon Afghanistan to opium, right after we reclaimed it from the Taliban and al-Qaeda."


Leave a Comment


Surfer Wrote the following on 11/18/2004 5:13 PM :
Dude, have actually seen someone go through withdrawals?


Surfer Wrote the following on 11/18/2004 5:45 PM :
I wasn't trying to make any implications on the "war on drug." Only to disagree with NeoCon about being allowed to plant just anything. I know there's no hope of stopping it, but for some of the stuff there does need to be some kind of control, even if only to slow consumption. Chemical drugs are some of the worst things you can do to your body. (unless you count pissing on an electric fence)


Patriot Wrote the following on 11/18/2004 5:50 PM :
Surfer - This touches on the issue of personal responsibility (or lack thereof) you blasted Alice about on another topic - abortion. Would it be fair to state that you feel, society or government or parents, have more of a responsbility to deter the individual from taking drugs than the individual responsibility of choice a person has when it comes to the act of taking recreational drugs?


Surfer Wrote the following on 11/19/2004 02:19 AM :
(I smell bait... I'll bite *smile*)

If I try really hard, I believe I can see your leap in logic on how the two relate. That's a fair question. Just to be sure, I "blasted" her (as you say) on the negativity that perpetuates the repression of said matter. I said nothing about whether abortion is right or wrong. I don't think I need to remind anyone concerning the post recently here of the Biblical stance on abortion and euthenasia.

The moment that a state (or federal) institution provides support for one individual who does not have the capacity to make appropriate choices for themselves, they set a precident: You did it for little Johnny, why not little Susie? Unless there are extreme or mitigating circumstances, the institution (ideally and by precedent in legal matters) must either say "No more" or create a system whereby equally qualified individuals must be helped. That is to say, they took responsibility for one person out of the masses and they must either prove why they should not continue to do so, continue to provide aid to similar individuals, or face possible scrutiny (or scandal, lawsuits, or worse).

It is each familial unit's responsibility to provide appropriate education in matters personal, provided that those lessons do not step outside of the boundries of the law. For example, if a parent comes from a country where theft was encouraged (let's say ancient culture in Easter Island, for example), they would be expected, in the best interest of the survival of the children in said culture, to teach them to be the best theives according to culture's societal structure. If that same family were to move to another country where theft is punishable (it matters not how), then it is again the responsibility of the family to teach the members not to steal in the new culture. It is also the prosecuting government's responsibility to take into account any mitigating circumstances (such as mental condition, cultural upbringing, circumstances at the time and place of the offense, etc) and issue a stay of punishment (mercy) or an appropriate punishment. Clearly, a person who has a record of stealing habitually for decades and been arrested many many times would know better and would be responsible according to accountability. If the family from Easter Island were to be arrested for stealing, while it is the court's responsibility to consider mitigating circumstances, it is the family's responsibility to prove that mitigating circumstance exist and present it in a manner acceptable to the court.

That being said, let me draw the two together. The government has taken a stance on recreational drugs. It's stance is, barring alcohol and tobacco, it is completely illegal (let's not take into account medicanal marijuana and religious ritual drugs for ease of conversation for now).

It is the family's responsibility to teach their children what is right according to beliefs (this includes you) but also to exist within the law. This creates the time proven battle between moralities of faith, culture, religion, etc and the moralities of the law. What it comes down to is that the person is responsible to follow the laws of the culture and the laws of the government or find a suitable alternative (perhaps moving to another place where the laws are in tune with their beliefs or maybe even convince the government why the law is unjust and begin the process of change, if allowed). As long as the person chooses (or guardians choose) to remain under those laws, it is the responsibility of the individual to follow the culture's laws as it is choice they make remaining a citizen under those laws. The person or family must balance the two.

In the case of the drug trade, the matter is slightly complicated as you have two cultures that abide by their own laws. Let's say Country A is against drugs. But Country B, which doesn't have as much of a reservation about it, grows it. Both countries know that it is being transported by an independent third party into Country A. Country B is only responsible in so much that they are allowing (whether on purpose or reasons beyond their control) that shipment to go to Country A. What happens with it inside Country A is not the responsibility of Country B. Country B would not find it acceptable for Country A to tell them that they cannot grow whatever drug that it is, nor should Country A assume that position. So, in fairness and to ease tensions, they should logically work together, either in earnest or to just save face.

Again, you have a difference of cultures, although the tension point is in a different realm entirely. It is up to two lawmaking bodies to sort the differences. The users in Country A only have as much say in the matter as they can influence internally in terms of the country's views on the controlled substance. They cannot influence the production or delivery of said substance in or from Country B except as an ordained extension of the laws of Country A or it's cooperative stance. Additionally, the persons involved cannot necessarily take measures inside the borders of Country B beyond what they are willing to allow.

Does this answer your question sufficiently?


Add a Comment !
Your Name:
[NOT LOGGED IN]
Comments :

Some BB code is now supported:

Underline Example:

The following comment:

This is an example of an [u]underlined[/u] comment.

Will produce:

This is an example of an underlined comment.

 

Italic Example:

The following comment:

This is an example of a [i]italic[/i] comment.

Will produce:

This is an example of a italic comment.

 

Bold Example:

The following comment:

This is an example of a [b]bold[/b] comment.

Will produce:

This is an example of a bold comment.

 

URL Hyperlink Example:

The following comment:

This is an example of [url=http://www.codewolf.com]a very cool site[/url]

Will produce:

This is an example of a very cool site

 

Also: Line breaks will be treated as a new paragraph