• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If you say the War on Drugs is a failure....

  • Thread starter Thread starter db
  • Start date Start date
not necessarily. i think the war on drugs is a failure. but i don't promote drug use in any way shape or form.
 
It's a common tactic. Just like in the olden days when witch hunts were common. Someone disagreed with the methods? they're obviously a witch/witch supporter
 


<< It's a common tactic. Just like in the olden days when witch hunts were common. Someone disagreed with the methods? they're obviously a witch/witch supporter >>


Yup, that's what it sounds like. When I think of all the victims of the war in contrast to how little progress it's made, it just seems obvious that it's not working. I can't believe Bush wants to spend even more money on the drug war.
DJHeater - Good article, thanks.
 
Somebody started a war on drugs? When? My local news hasn't been cutting in on my shows with "AMERICA AT WAR WITH LOCAL POTHEADS" special reports or anything.

Are you sure? Do you have proof?
 
Then again...maybe the reason is that there's a pretty big overlap between those who take drugs and those who say the war on drugs is a failure...

Don't know for sure but if you asked this question to drug-users:

  • Is the drug war a failure?

then you'd probably get more positive responses than if you asked non-drug-users, no? Because drug users spend more time among other drug-users than non-drug-users and thus, see the problem more often than non-drug-users...
 
The "war" on drugs is a failure for the same reason we failed in Vietnam. It's all about politics, and little about problem solving.

Russ, NCNE
 


<< The "war" on drugs is a failure for the same reason we failed in Vietnam. It's all about politics, and little about problem solving.

Russ, NCNE >>


exactly.
 


<< ...you are accused of promoting drug use.

Why? >>



If you say Homosexuality is harmless and the hatred directed at them is irrational, you're accused of being gay.

Why does this happen? Because it's the easy way out. Rather than actually face the fact that someone like you can have a different opinion, you choose to demonize them and make them "one of them."
 


<< The "war" on drugs is a failure for the same reason we failed in Vietnam. It's all about politics, and little about problem solving.

Russ, NCNE >>


Couldn't agree more.

peace
sean
 


<< then you'd probably get more positive responses than if you asked non-drug users, no? >>


Then next question you should ask is how they feel about the tax dollars of theirs spent on it.

So if you say the war on terrorism is a waste of time and money (failure), then you support terrorism.

BS politics that anyone with half a brain cell can see through. If you cannot, or you believe the govt. propaganda then you belong in your brainwashed place in life.

 
Seems very common nowerdayz.

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial.
 
The reasoning behind all the government commercials is this: if you are not working against it, by standing aside and letting it happen, you are not better than the people who are actually using drugs/being violent/whatever they're plugging that day.

nik
 


<< Seems very common nowerdayz.

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial. >>



Pot. Kettle. Black. (Forbes magazine)
 


<<

<< Seems very common nowerdayz.

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial. >>



Pot. Kettle. Black. (Forbes magazine) >>



I was bored from repeating myself and asking the same questions we all do it when lazy noodle syndrome kicks in. And for real life, your being condescending or even outright insulting is a good way to get stuffed in the dumpster behind the bar😉
 


<< The reasoning behind all the government commercials is this: if you are not working against it, by standing aside and letting it happen, you are not better than the people who are actually using drugs/being violent/whatever they're plugging that day. >>

Sounds like John Asshat..err Ashcroft speaking there.
 


<< Read THIS article. Especially Buckley's contribution. It is, obviously, a very complicated subject. >>

Excellent, excellent link, djheater. Thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top