We should continue to fight the 'war on drugs' because... North Korea!

«‹›3 »

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > We should continue to fight the 'war on drugs' because... North Korea!

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

What does drug prohibition have to do with North Korea?

Well, according to the author of an article published in Forbes magazine, just about everything.

You see:

quote:

The war on drugs is difficult and expensive, and there are signs that it is faltering, with battle lines being drawn. Many people, particularly in the entertainment industry, are already campaigning to legalize a variety of so-called soft (or recreational) drugs, such as marijuana. Indeed, pro-drug lobbies already exist here in the U.K. and in the U.S.

If society gives way on this, the consequences will be momentous, precisely because the profits to be made from the marketing and selling of soft drugs will be enormous. There will be nothing to prevent a large-scale international corporation being formed solely to manufacture and circulate such drugs. Equally, existing pharmaceutical companies will be able to enter the trade. The competition will be fierce, which alone will drive down prices. The products will be “improved” and become more alluring. In no time supermarkets and corner shops will be selling marijuana, and the term “drugstore” will acquire a new and deadlier meaning.

Vast sums will be spent on promotion, especially among the young. Equally large amounts of money will become available to expand the scope of decriminalization, redefining the border between soft and hard drugs to eventually include heroin.

And what of the violent criminal elements already involved in the drug trade–the Taliban, which sells and ships the fruit of the poppy out of Afghanistan, and the cartels in South and Central America that run drugs into Mexico and the U.S. The violence surrounding the drug trade will only escalate.

Another possibility to consider is that a rogue state, such as North Korea, will enter the burgeoning drug market. North Korea’s evil regime survives by performing tasks no other government is able or willing to contemplate. For instance, it has supplied nuclear technology to other rogue states in contravention of all international law. Both Syria and Iran have paid North Korea in gold for its aid in their nuclear efforts. There is no way to stop these transactions as long as China refuses to take punitive steps against its former military and ideological ally.

Recreational drugs are comparatively easy for a ruthless and determined government to grow and/or manufacture. Supplying these drugs to Americans is precisely the kind of prospect that would appeal to the North Korean leadership. They’ve always claimed that capitalist democracies are essentially corrupt and decadent. This would enable them to “prove” it, especially if the release of vast quantities of cheap soft drugs into Western cities were followed by an increase in the supply and use of hard drugs, as many experts believe would be inevitable. http://www.forbes.com/sites/current...efining-moment/

This is quite possibly the most insane defense of drug prohibition I have ever read. Because it frightens me to think these views might shape our drug policy I immediately began typing an email to the Forbes editorial team to voice my concerns.

About two sentences in, I stopped writing.

It occurs to me that it may be a good idea to give these raving lunatics a platform to defend their position. It would appear that supporters of the status quo (drug prohibition) are becoming threatened by change and the crazier their rantings may become.

So I've decided to re-write my email to Forbes and commend them for publishing what is perhaps a rare glimpse into the confused mind of a drug warrior.

KingEup fucked around with this message at Mar 7, 2013 around 05:19

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2013 16:03

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 9, 2007; Remind me to work out until I also am buff and have to keep a pillow in front of my okay I'll be honest this is like the 50th custom title I've done tonight and I'm just phoning it in now.

People are starting to discover that a few people puffing on a bit of weed recreationally isn't going to bring about the downfall of society. So we need a new boogeyman to fear I guess.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:26

evensevenone: May 12, 2001; Glass is a solid.

That's hilarious because North Korea is actually a significant producer/exporter of meth, especially to Japan. There are significant ties between North Korea and organized crime in Japan, and there's been a long tacit agreement that meth would be tolerated if the Yakuza stay out of cocaine/heroin/marijuana.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:28

Snatch Duster: Feb 20, 2007; Can't post for 48 hours!

Seems legit.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:29

zedprime: Jun 9, 2007

Its Forbes, they'll let any looney have a contributor account to drive site views with ridiculous nonsense and

quote:

This story appears in the 25 March 2013 issue of Forbes.

Oh.

North Korea would totally corner the market in smuggling stuff across an ocean that if legalized can be grown accidentally because it is literally a weed.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:30

Lumberjack Bonanza: Feb 27, 2011; I'LL CUT THAT POST TO PIECES!

Marijuana: DEADLY ARM OF TOTALITARIAN REGIMES

When the gently caress did we go back to the Reefer Madness days?

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:31

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The Screw Whisperer (TM)

Lumberjack Bonanza posted:

Marijuana: DEADLY ARM OF TOTALITARIAN REGIMES

When the gently caress did we go back to the Reefer Madness days?

You haven't met the Tea Party yet have you? They long for a return to the 50's

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:37

Wildlife Analysis: Jul 26, 2008

Lumberjack Bonanza posted:

Marijuana: DEADLY ARM OF TOTALITARIAN REGIMES

When the gently caress did we go back to the Reefer Madness days?

When drug hawks realized that people were beginning to accept marijuana as a normal thing.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:39

Xenocides: Jan 14, 2008; They weren't just hull numbers, they were our home addresses. Now the old neighborhood is torn down and gone and all that is left are memories.

I am against legalization of soft drugs and this is still a stupid argument.

Do they imagine that somehow legalizing drugs will cause the US and the rest of the world to lift trade sanctions and start legally buying their sweet sweet drugs? Maybe if the entirety of Congress and the President get stoned for an afternoon and realize that North Korea is not that bad and are just misunderstood.

If anything their already existing illegal market would falter. The reality though is not a lot of drugs from North Korea come to the United States. China and Japan get most of what they export. When they talk about international corporations taking over drug agriculture do they really think the government of North Korea is going to be the first ones to mass produce the stuff and somehow get around the trade sanctions? I imagine there would be little objection from the pro-legalization lobby for prohibiting the importing of any recreational drugs from North Korea.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:41

bigperm: Jul 10, 2001; some obscure reference

Weed is perfectly legal in North Korea already.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:43

Kungfootek: Sep 13, 2012

The whole driving factor of the articles argument is economic.

The author paints a picture that sounds like it's a gold rush for our economy, then tries to follow that up with an argument that would be obsolete were marijuana or other drugs legalized.

Laws only control lawful people. Only illegal goods will be worth smuggling.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:44

Lumberjack Bonanza: Feb 27, 2011; I'LL CUT THAT POST TO PIECES!

Xenocides posted:

I am against legalization of soft drugs and this is still a stupid argument.

Do they imagine that somehow legalizing drugs will cause the US and the rest of the world to lift trade sanctions and start legally buying their sweet sweet drugs? Maybe if the entirety of Congress and the President get stoned for an afternoon and realize that North Korea is not that bad and are just misunderstood.

If anything their already existing illegal market would falter. The reality though is not a lot of drugs from North Korea come to the United States. China and Japan get most of what they export. When they talk about international corporations taking over drug agriculture do they really think the government of North Korea is going to be the first ones to mass produce the stuff and somehow get around the trade sanctions? I imagine there would be little objection from the pro-legalization lobby for prohibiting the importing of any recreational drugs from North Korea.

Yeah, this is the thing right here. The North Korea part is utterly divorced from reality, and the earlier part of the article makes that clear. If weed became big business, with high-quality, well-regulated stuff flooding the market while competition keeps prices low, how the gently caress does North Korea muscle its way in? They can't even feed their loving population.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:47

Croisquessein: Feb 25, 2005; invisible or nonexistent, and should be treated as such

quote:

In no time supermarkets and corner shops will be selling marijuana, and the term “drugstore” will acquire a new and deadlier meaning.

But they already sell cigarettes and alcohol, plus there was a time they sold cocaine and opium. And I giggled at the idea that marijuana might somehow be improved in quality due to the increased demand. How would somebody achieve such a thing, I ask??

Seriously, they can barely grow food in North Korea, and who would buy NK weed if BC weed were legal and available?

e: beaten on that last part, but the point stands!

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:50

Ashenai: Oct 5, 2005; You taught me language;
and my profit on't
Is, I know how to curse.

quote:

In no time supermarkets and corner shops will be selling marijuana, and the term “drugstore” will acquire a new and deadlier meaning.

There are a lot of quotable sentences in the OP, but I think this one is my favorite. It sounds like something from a Chick tract.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:54

Bolian Blues: Nov 3, 2008

evensevenone posted:

That's hilarious because North Korea is actually a significant producer/exporter of meth, especially to Japan. There are significant ties between North Korea and organized crime in Japan, and there's been a long tacit agreement that meth would be tolerated if the Yakuza stay out of cocaine/heroin/marijuana.

Came here to post this. The NK links to organized crime and drug trafficking is actually pretty interesting, but the reality is nowhere near what this guy is talking about.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:58

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 9, 2007; Remind me to work out until I also am buff and have to keep a pillow in front of my okay I'll be honest this is like the 50th custom title I've done tonight and I'm just phoning it in now.

Bolian Blues posted:

Came here to post this. The NK links to organized crime and drug trafficking is actually pretty interesting, but the reality is nowhere near what this guy is talking about.

It basically revolves around Japan and their obsession with pachinko.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 02:59

Chamale: Jul 11, 2010; Men on the moon and men spinning around the earth and there's not no attention paid to earthly law and order.

How would ending the war on drugs give North Korea more money from their meth and LSD labs? If we make it legal to manufacture all kinds of dangerous drugs in America, it'll encourage entrepreneurial production, create jobs and stimulate local economies.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:03

Khorne: May 1, 2002; My image was too larg e so I got this

Ending the war on drugs hurts North Korea's existing drug trade. It doesn't encourage them to become a legal player. This article is very poorly thought out, and that's coming from someone who doesn't drink alcohol or take any recreational drugs.

edit: I am all for legalizing soft drugs and probably decriminalizing possession (without intent to distribute) of harder drugs. The war on drugs is based on a false ideology that doesn't stand up under scrutiny or agree with any studies.

Khorne fucked around with this message at Mar 7, 2013 around 03:22

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:06

Paradox Personified: Mar 15, 2010; SoroScrew

Lumberjack Bonanza posted:

When the gently caress did we go back to the Reefer Madness days?

quote:

Marijuana: DEADLY ARM OF TOTALITARIAN REGIMES

Drugs are like that, too.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:09

ArbitraryC: Jan 28, 2009; Pick a number, any number.

zedprime posted:

North Korea would totally corner the market in smuggling stuff across an ocean that if legalized can be grown accidentally because it is literally a weed.

Yeah I mean weed is incredibly easy to grow and absolutely anyone who thinks the federal legalization would result in anything other that various companies taking over bulk production domestically must not know anything about anything. It costs money to ship things over an ocean and it's completely unnecessary in this case. Isn't Forbes supposed to be for businessmen, surely they've heard that shipping costs money?

I wouldn't be surprised at all if some tobacco companies had already invested money in R&D/drafting up plans to get that poo poo to market asap with it's inevitable coming legalization.

ArbitraryC fucked around with this message at Mar 7, 2013 around 03:17

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:12

HondaRider271: Jul 19, 2007; it's always good to have more

Xenocides posted:

I am against legalization of soft drugs and this is still a stupid argument.

Oh I'd just love to hear your totally-not-stupid arguments for maintaining the prohibition of soft drugs.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:20

Oldstench: Jun 29, 2007; "Was there anything about the mission that hasn't gone as well as you hoped?"

"No."

HondaRider271 posted:

Oh I'd just love to hear your totally-not-stupid arguments for maintaining the prohibition of soft drugs.

Well you see, weed is smoked by those dirty blacks and leftist non-conformists. My 2 or 3 glasses of fine Scotch every night is acceptable due to the fact that it only makes me hit my wife at most twice a month.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:28

Neptr: Mar 1, 2011

The author somehow doesn't realize that there's a middle ground between illegal and 100% unregulated. No, there won't be massive profits to be had marketing marijuana, because you can regulate advertising. As far as super weed goes, the Netherlands already regulates maximum THC content (although I hear it isn't terribly effective). The whole point of legalization is that the black market is by definition unregulated, and the legalization movement would like to change that.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:31

Fruits of the sea: Dec 1, 2010

The best thing about this article is how it asssumes that a global marijuana trade wouldn't be crippled by trade embargoes and subsidies

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:34

Tonsured: Jan 13, 2005

Was the author high or what?

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:40

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 9, 2007; Remind me to work out until I also am buff and have to keep a pillow in front of my okay I'll be honest this is like the 50th custom title I've done tonight and I'm just phoning it in now.

Tonsured posted:

Was the author high or what?

Rich corporate/wall street people are notorious for being constantly high on amphetamines and coke. So probably.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:42

Tonsured: Jan 13, 2005

In defense of drugs, maybe if everyone on earth got high at the same time a portal of fairy land will open up and simply replace rogue nations like North Korea with shiny ponies and stuff.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:46

Neutrino: Mar 8, 2006

North Korea is already manufacturing a Grateful Dead Tribute Band so that they will have a ready-made distribution network. They will call them the Gwateful Dead Weader.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:47

Afro: May 29, 2007; Neil de Tyson

Tonsured posted:

In defense of drugs, maybe if everyone on earth got high at the same time a portal of fairy land will open up and simply replace rogue nations like North Korea with shiny ponies and stuff.

No joke this would be totally rad.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:47

Angela Christine: Oct 4, 2008; LIL CUTIES

Neptr posted:

The author somehow doesn't realize that there's a middle ground between illegal and 100% unregulated. No, there won't be massive profits to be had marketing marijuana, because you can regulate advertising. As far as super weed goes, the Netherlands already regulates maximum THC content (although I hear it isn't terribly effective). The whole point of legalization is that the black market is by definition unregulated, and the legalization movement would like to change that.

And while nearly anyone could grow their own weed on a balcony, for the most part they won't. Given the choice, most people will choose the convenience of clean, sterile, taxed and regulated pre-packaged weed. Most people don't try to grow their own tobacco, or grow a significant portion of their own food, or even brew their own cheap beer and hobo wine from kits that require you to do little more than add water and stir. Make it clean, safe and legal, and people will happily buy name brand corporate weed with precisely controlled THC levels.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:47

Devils Affricate: Jan 22, 2010; science unflinchingly pokes away at the unknown and corrects itself with what it sees while religion screams into the darkness and swears it hears an answer

Xenocides posted:

I am against legalization of soft drugs and this is still a stupid argument.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that it's only slightly stupider than your own argument.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:54

redeyes: Sep 14, 2002; I LOVE THE WHITE STRIPES!

Im for legalization of North Korea. Dats some gooood poo poo.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 03:57

Mr. Jive: May 10, 2007; Yes, that was indubitably sweet!

Forget North Korea. We just spent 10 years trying to install a government in Afghanistan. If the drug trade finds its way in, that money could be used to fund terrorist groups, and then we are hosed.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 04:03

powerofrecall: Jun 26, 2009; Jeez... I wish I didn't have to meet him like this.

HondaRider271 posted:

Oh I'd just love to hear your totally-not-stupid arguments for maintaining the prohibition of soft drugs.

Is this guy Xenocides really worth calling out? I mean, when I read his post it came across as "I have unrealistic expections of drug law and a stunted idea of the societal impact of soft drugs, but"

# ? Mar 7, 2013 04:05

Priapus: Feb 17, 2007; I AM LITERALLY AND I MEAN LITERALLY A STUPID NAIVE SHELTERED IGNORANT DENSE AS FUCK WASTE OF SPACE. PLEASE IGNORE ANYTHING I SAY AS THEY ARE THE RAMBLINGS OF A DELUSIONAL FUCKWAD PS MY DICK IS VERY SMALL AND I PROBABLY HAVE NEVER USED IT im so very retarded

It would be as if North Korea were to produce massive quantities of food, a legal and cheap product, and flood the American market with hyper potent strains.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 04:07

Shimrra Jamaane: Aug 9, 2007; Remind me to work out until I also am buff and have to keep a pillow in front of my okay I'll be honest this is like the 50th custom title I've done tonight and I'm just phoning it in now.

Mr. Jive posted:

Forget North Korea. We just spent 10 years trying to install a government in Afghanistan. If the drug trade finds its way in, that money could be used to fund terrorist groups, and then we are hosed.

The drug trade already controls Afghanistan. Its called opium.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 04:09

Afro: May 29, 2007; Neil de Tyson

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

The drug trade already controls Afghanistan. Its called opium.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Mar 7, 2013 04:11

Wingnut Ninja: Jan 11, 2003; Mostly Harmless

It'll be just like in the 1930's when the Axis powers made tons of money by selling alcohol in the US. Look at all the trouble that caused!

# ? Mar 7, 2013 04:14

Xenocides: Jan 14, 2008; They weren't just hull numbers, they were our home addresses. Now the old neighborhood is torn down and gone and all that is left are memories.

powerofrecall posted:

Is this guy Xenocides really worth calling out?

Probably not; it is an irrelevant derail.

CAustin posted:

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that it's only slightly stupider than your own argument.

I would rate it as moderately stupider at least but it is an admittedly subjective scale.

Oldstench posted:

Well you see, weed is smoked by those dirty blacks and leftist non-conformists. My 2 or 3 glasses of fine Scotch every night is acceptable due to the fact that it only makes me hit my wife at most twice a month.

Is now a bad time to bring up my pro-Prohibition stance?

HondaRider271 posted:

Oh I'd just love to hear your totally-not-stupid arguments for maintaining the prohibition of soft drugs.

Looking at the data I think the societal and individual negatives outweigh the societal and individual positives. I think we should wait another decade and closely watch how legalization has influenced other Western nations before proceeding.

I am in the minority here obviously so let's focus on the stupidity of this argument and save my stupidity for another thread.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 04:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2013 16:03

XBurritoXLogicX: Jun 26, 2005

America is a culture that loves its drugs. Do we really want everyone to be stoned constantly, just chilling on the couch watching weird movies. There's nothing funny or cool about laziness. Intoxicated people should be rowdy, dangerous and prone to rash decisions. That's the only way to tell that they are bad people.

Besides alcohol makes you fat while also contributing to cancer and liver disease. If people aren't morally strong enough to resist a drugs siren call, they need to suffer for it.

420? More like a 180 away from being a good person.

# ? Mar 7, 2013 04:52

«‹›3 »

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > We should continue to fight the 'war on drugs' because... North Korea!