Police Brutality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
341

[quote]ironmaniac508 wrote:

People in Africa should not be starving though. Do they not know how to hunt, fish, or grow crops, I mean Africa is the origin of humans so they should be adapted to where they live. Besides other people in the world live in inhospitable environments and yet are not starving. People in the middle east learned to live in a desert so why cant Africans learn to live in a place that is teaming with animals and resources. Inuit learned to live in the arctic, polynesians were able to travel over the expanses of the pacific and flourish on remote islands.

So why is it they cannot adapt? People in China and India are starving because there are just to many of them. The population in the African countries is no where near as ridiculous as it is in China and India so that cannot be a reason. If they do not learn how to support themselves they will always be a starving people. We have to help them create their own government and infrastructure not just give them food. They have to develop as a people like every else in the world has done.[/quote]

I’ll make sure to get the message on to them.
Look for food. Who would have thought it was so easy. I bet they never considered hunting or fishing when they were starving to death.

Anyway you are clearly an idiot, and I am amazed it hasn’t dawned upon you that if there was a simple solution they would have taken it. No continent starves to death out of laziness. Yes there are too many Africans to have a hunter gatherer diet.

342

[quote]eigieinhamr wrote:
ironmaniac508 wrote:

People in Africa should not be starving though. Do they not know how to hunt, fish, or grow crops, I mean Africa is the origin of humans so they should be adapted to where they live. Besides other people in the world live in inhospitable environments and yet are not starving. People in the middle east learned to live in a desert so why cant Africans learn to live in a place that is teaming with animals and resources. Inuit learned to live in the arctic, polynesians were able to travel over the expanses of the pacific and flourish on remote islands.

So why is it they cannot adapt? People in China and India are starving because there are just to many of them. The population in the African countries is no where near as ridiculous as it is in China and India so that cannot be a reason. If they do not learn how to support themselves they will always be a starving people. We have to help them create their own government and infrastructure not just give them food. They have to develop as a people like every else in the world has done.

I’ll make sure to get the message on to them.
Look for food. Who would have thought it was so easy. I bet they never considered hunting or fishing when they were starving to death.

Anyway you are clearly an idiot, and I am amazed it hasn’t dawned upon you that if there was a simple solution they would have taken it. No continent starves to death out of laziness. Yes there are too many Africans to have a hunter gatherer diet.[/quote]

So why cant they have agriculture as well as relying on hunting and fishing? People in the middle east have lived in the desert for thousands of years and yet have flourished.

It is believed that farming was first developed in the middle east so if they can raise crops there why not in Africa. Teach the Africans how to raise and mantain an agricultural system as well as raise livestock for meat and dairy and they will be self sufficient.

343

[quote]Unaware wrote:

I can see where you are coming from. I’m sure you’ve seen drugs do horrible things. I totally agree with you that drugs are a huge problem with our society. They cost us a hell of a lot, wouldn’t you agree?

I think that trying to influence countries to switch from drugs to other crops diplomatically is probably a good way to go, and could be very useful in lowering drug use in USA. I’m sure you can understand, however, the ramifications of destroying crops in sovereign countries. We must tread softly. [/quote]

I do believe that replacement of illicit crops with agricultural or things like switch grass for as long as ethanol is the way to go.

If countries don’t see eye to eye with this very reasonable point of view, then I wouldn’t be above using force to make them do the right thing anymore than I would against fighting any other war; that is the essence of war between nations after all. The best choice however would be non-violent. However, if left wing guerrillas in say Columbia didn’t see eye to eye with us, to me this be a cause for war that would be noble on several fronts.

You must agree that the organized crime associated with the drug war is a menace to our society? The power of these groups is directly related to the illegality of drugs. In essence we grant them a government controlled monopoly of the industry. Only they don’t play by the rules like other companies are compelled too. Surely you can stand behind eliminating their stranglehold on the American drug trade?

[quote]Unaware wrote:

I see your point with doctor’s being wary to prescribe these drugs. They are dangerous and doctors are right to be concerned about prescribing them. This is a double edged sword however, as doctors are often worried about prescribing drugs for legitimate conditions because of DEA regulations. Many organizations report under-prescription of opioid for chronic pain conditions, which is an unfortunate side effect of drug prohibition(for further reading: http://www.ampainsoc.org/advocacy/opioids.htm). If we can reduce DEA influence, many doctors would be willing to prescribe these drugs. [/quote]

A lot of people do abuse prescription drugs which is why some doctors are hesitant to prescribe them. Plus many of them are highly addictive.

[quote]Unaware wrote:
Finally the reply to Orion’s reply is spot on. No one should be forced to subsidize these people’s addiction. All this support should be provided from the private sector, from donors who believe in the cause.However, Orion’s point is that with the amount of money spent on the war on drugs we could treat all these people personally and get a better result than the War on Drugs has produced. I know you would rather have the money go toward helping people in need than punishing them for their personal indiscretions.

Thanks for considering the points presented above,

I look forward to your response.
[/quote]

That’s not the way that legalizing things like smokes and booze works in this country. The minute something that is viewed as a recreational substance is legalized, the government taxes the crap out it. Again… look at the 10$ pack of cigarettes in New York for example.
Now we have the government trying to crack down on it even more through FDA control of tobacco. There are also lots of taxes in alcohol too. I know in some states, tax dollars goes to help addicts. There really is no precedent for a substance being legal in this country and a)Not getting taxed and b) Tax revenue going towards people who have problems with them.

If pot ever gets officially decriminalized or legalized, the government will be taxing that too. In California for example, they are looking to make pot legalized to that they can raise tax revenue. This is the mentality in this country.

This is not even considering the fact that doctors would have to have to prescribe these drugs (and reconcile this with their Hippocratic oath among other things like getting sued because their prescription turned them into an addict along with the pharma co),etc. Plus, where would this fit in with nationalized health care that seems the rage these days?

344

[quote]orion wrote:

a) a pack of cigarettes would cost you much less than 2$- The reason why the price is higher is because of government. Exactly like with any other drug.[/quote]

But cigarettes DO cost more than 2$ here because of taxes and big government under Obama has gotten even bigger.

[quote]orion wrote:

b) you are already paying for it. You can have your socialism in the form of medical professionals or in the form of DEA officers.[/quote]

Again… if you want to destroy a plant, attack the roots, not the leaves.

[quote]orion wrote:
I prefer nurses.

They do not shoot at me after kicking down my door at 2 am.

[/quote]

Actually I have managed to live my whole life here and never had my door kicked down.

345

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:

Actually I have managed to live my whole life here and never had my door kicked down.

[/quote]

I’ve had the police break into my garden because they “thought” the house might be abandoned because there were some advertising fliers left in my gate.

346

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
orion wrote:

a) a pack of cigarettes would cost you much less than 2$- The reason why the price is higher is because of government. Exactly like with any other drug.

But cigarettes DO cost more than 2$ here because of taxes and big government under Obama has gotten even bigger.

orion wrote:

b) you are already paying for it. You can have your socialism in the form of medical professionals or in the form of DEA officers.

Again… if you want to destroy a plant, attack the roots, not the leaves.

orion wrote:
I prefer nurses.

They do not shoot at me after kicking down my door at 2 am.

Actually I have managed to live my whole life here and never had my door kicked down.

[/quote]

I feel your analogy about attacking the roots of a plant is as flawed as your theory on drugs. Some plants are easy to remove the roots some are not. Round up attacks the photo synthesis. I had cat claw that I could not get rid of, the way I finally got rid of it was to quit watering it and bury it in salt.