More of the same, from bad to worse

[Matteo Martini]

I was just wondering about some unrelated problems in the world today ( and of yesterday ) and about how they seem to suffer from the same " more of the same " syndrome.

1) As I posted in the post " World Hunger ", the delevoped countries have already given to Africa some 400 billions of dollars with little benefit to Africa economy apparently. Economist Erixon suggests that the more the aid to Africa the worse to its economy( link: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=44836 )

2) War on drugs, even if it is 30 years or more that the U.S. is fighting the war as hard as ever, drug abuse shows little signs of decline. Also, drug money helped the increase in corruption of the police and the creation of " gangs " in all major U.S. and European cities

3) Same thing in the past with Proibitionism in the U.S.: the fight to alcool lead to corruption in the police, the rise of Al Capone, etc.

4) In Italy, it is about 50 or more years that the regions of the North are much more rich than the regions of the South, and yearly a part of the money gathered by taxes from the North goes down to the South as " aids ".
Some claim that all these money only help the South " Mafia " stay in power and prevent ( and not help ! ) the South from develop

Four different examples in different countries and in different years that the principle of the " more of the same " leads to the strenghtening of the problem, not to its solution.

What do you think?

[Magyar]

the trouble with your list is that every one of the things you listed are nothing more than the 2 word 10 second soundbites for
for the sheeple.

World Hunger - sending billions and forgiving billions of debt to/for corrupt dictators who use it to buy another Mercedes or what ever does nothing for the hungry.

War on Drugs - you can't possibly have a real war on drugs
UNLESS you ACTUALLY secure the borders. There is some border town in Mexico that got taken over by the drug rings, they killed the local cos and have FULL control of the town. They spend the day using the police radio to make fun of the federalies.
Our corporations and politicians make way too much money to
acttually do something about controling illegals. THe end result is that the ONLY place the war on drugs actually exists is
the banning of medical pot and the control the "legal" drug companies have on price fixing and doing something about medical care in this country. (this is the same reason the prohabition didn't work. Way too many politicainas were making big bucks)

[TragicMonkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
1) As I posted in the post " World Hunger ", the delevoped countries have already given to Africa some 400 billions of dollars with little benefit to Africa economy apparently.

Aid to other places has always been a prime area for corruption and thievery. The people giving the money are motivated by guilt and fuzzy-feelings, and are thus disinclined to ask sharp questions of the recipients, even if distance in space and culture didn't make it more difficult. The recipients are therefore free to skim as much as they like from the top. The objects of the charity are already poor and miserable enough that they are powerless to prevent it, even if they knew they were being cheated.

Quote:

2) War on drugs, even if it is 30 years or more that the U.S. is fighting the war as hard as ever, drug abuse shows little signs of decline. Also, drug money helped the increase in corruption of the police and the creation of " gangs " in all major U.S. and European cities

3) Same thing in the past with Proibitionism in the U.S.: the fight to alcool lead to corruption in the police, the rise of Al Capone, etc.

Can't fight human nature. People want a thing, they're going to get it. Making it illegal or difficult won't change that.

Quote:

4) In Italy, it is about 50 or more years that the regions of the North are much more rich than the regions of the South, and yearly a part of the money gathered by taxes from the North goes down to the South as " aids ".
Some claim that all these money only help the South " Mafia " stay in power and prevent ( and not help ! ) the South from develop

A lot of countries have regions with totally different economies (usually such things are due to geography). The richer part will naturally resent being taxed to help the poorer part. The question they must ask is, is the poorer part really contributing nothing to the richer part? For instance, it is ridiculous for rich and populous metropolitan areas to resent the rural countryside that grows the food the metropolitans eat. If there truly is no contribution at all to the whole, then perhaps unity is not a good thing, and the dead weight should be scrapped. Since land territory on this planet is all completely claimed at this point, though, it might be worth to hold on to all you've got on the hopes it will amount to something some day. At the very least, a growing population will need some space to live in. Perhaps one day the suburbs of the north will reach all the way to the end of the peninsula.

[Mephisto]

. . . more of the same solutions to the same problems is the rut people (governments, institutions, etc.) have gotten into in deciding on solutions. Israel and terrorism is a good example; everytime a Palestinian "suicider" kills Israelis in a marketplace, a cafe or a bus, Israel responds by leveling Palestinian homes or rocketing a "suspected" terrorist holdout. It never stops. The two have been going back and forth for years with no end in sight. What if, (I love playing this) Israel turned 180° and began helping Palestine become a sovereign country? What if Israel helped Palestinian merchants and businessmen make a little money? What if Israel suggested SHARING the land and dispersed its populace among the Palestinians? A. radical Palestinians wouldn't be able to point at the "EVIL" Jews, B. "suiciders" wouldn't have a concentrated target to attack (if Palestinians and Israelis lived in close proximity - they would end up killing the people whose support they want). Of course, the solution will NEVER be given a chance, simply because they're much happier pointing fingers and killing each other.

The same is true of the drug war. The U.S. has spent billions upon billions of dollars trying to stop the flood illegal drugs, yet some sources believe that only 10% of the drug flow is stopped. If, instead of criminalizing marijuana, the government legalized it and taxed it, it could eventually put a dent in the costs of losing this war so blantly. If treatment for addictions (including alcohol and tobacco) were used instead of prison the use of dangerous drugs might actually be curtailed. Of course, this won't ever be tried because conservatives would see addicts as being coddled, and while they would rather pay for an expensive war across the world, they would never want to help out an American addict.

The war on terrorism is another great example. If, instead of throwing all our eggs in one basket by fighting in Iraq, we spent all those billions on securing our ports, our transportation system, our railways, chemical plant, nuclear power plants, etc., we might not have to worry so much about so devastating an attack in the future. If we spent more money HELPING others instead of invading them, or infuriating them we might erase the image the world has of us as a bad guy. Just think of the response if the U.S. spent money in middle eastern countries building mosques, schools and hospitals. People would openly laugh when told of all the horrible things the "Great Satan" has done.

Tradition, stupidity, inflexibility and just plain stubborness keeps us from thinking in different directions. Of course, there are those that will scoff at what I've suggested, but it's fairly apparent to me that doing things a certain way because that's the way we've always done them, is a pretty dismal excuse for anything.

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
. . . more of the same solutions to the same problems is the rut people (governments, institutions, etc.) have gotten into in deciding on solutions. Israel and terrorism is a good example; everytime a Palestinian "suicider" kills Israelis in a marketplace, a cafe or a bus, Israel responds by leveling Palestinian homes or rocketing a "suspected" terrorist holdout. It never stops. The two have been going back and forth for years with no end in sight. What if, (I love playing this) Israel turned 180° and began helping Palestine become a sovereign country? What if Israel helped Palestinian merchants and businessmen make a little money? What if Israel suggested SHARING the land and dispersed its populace among the Palestinians?

Maybe because that won't satisfy the goals of those Palestinians who are actually doing the killing of Israelis. In case you didn't know, the Hamas charter essentially calls for genocide against the Jews. Do you not believe them? Do you not take them at their word? I do.

Yes, continuing to do the same thing and expect different results is a good definition of insanity. But the Israelis aren't doing what they've always done. Which is why the number of successful suicide bombings in Israel has actually dropped quite significantly over the last year or so.

But what about the Palestinians? Why don't they try not killing Jews? Might that not be a novel approach? After all, the Israelis do have another option, one which the Palestinians seem to be driving them towards: sealing off the border between Israel and the West Bank/Gaza permanently. No Palestinians get into Israel. They can fend for themselves. At that point, without Israeli assistance and jobs, the Palestinians will be forced to build a society for themselves. And every indicator suggests they'll screw it up completely from top to bottom. I don't think that's what they really want, but that's what they might get. Given this reality (regardless of how unfair you think it is), isn't it more logical for the Palestinians to be a little more accomodating?

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
And every indicator suggests they'll screw it up completely from top to bottom. I don't think that's what they really want, but that's what they might get. Given this reality (regardless of how unfair you think it is), isn't it more logical for the Palestinians to be a little more accomodating?

Funny, I'm sure a lot of people held this opinion about the Native Americans, who had their own civilization, culture and art BEFORE the colonists showed up. Yet, THEY were seen as the savage heathens who could have been a "little more accomodating."

You're a perfect example of NOT being able to think in other than conventional terms. It wouldn't surprise me if you thought a viable solution would be to wipe out the Palestinians.

[Bikewer]

I remember seeing a GAO report perhaps 10-12 years ago to the effect that "Drugs are widely available, in high states of purity and at low prices despite the ongoing enforcement efforts".

The situation has not changed. Drugs remain an important part of the economy not only of many other countries, but here as well.

On Talk of The Nation a couple of years ago, they examined a university study that documented several billions of dollars moving through the greater Detroit area over several years, all from the drug trade.
In this high-unemployment area, drugs were keeping the local economy alive. The mom & pop stores, video rentals, hairdressers and so forth were staying in buisness because the drug trade kept sufficient monies in the system to support these buisnesses.

In third-world countries, the manufacture and export of drugs may be the only source of revenue available.

Couple this with the seemingly-inexhaustable quest of human beings to intoxicate themselves....

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
...What if, (I love playing this) Israel turned 180° and began helping Palestine become a sovereign country? What if Israel helped Palestinian merchants and businessmen make a little money?...

It's already been tried. This was the idea behind the Oslo peace agreement back in '93. Israel signed the deal, spent a bunch of money helping the Palestinian-Arabs build up their infrastructure and create the institutions that would be needed for self rule, spent a bunch more money arming and training their security forces with the understanding that they would be used to curb terror...and anti-Jewish Palestinian terror actually went up.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
You're a perfect example of NOT being able to think in other than conventional terms. It wouldn't surprise me if you thought a viable solution would be to wipe out the Palestinians.

That is a viable solution. Another is to kill all the Jews. Personally I'd like a solution that doesn't require either of those, and that's going to require a realistic assessment of the situation and not fantasy wistful thinking.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bikewer
In this high-unemployment area, drugs were keeping the local economy alive. The mom & pop stores, video rentals, hairdressers and so forth were staying in buisness because the drug trade kept sufficient monies in the system to support these buisnesses.

Trading in drugs can certainly get money to an individual, but ultimately it takes money out of an economy. I'm skeptical of this claim, if a person deals drugs to earn anough money to rent a video, it has to be remembered that the person he sold the drugs to might have rented that video also if he hadn't spent the money on drugs.

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Funny, I'm sure a lot of people held this opinion about the Native Americans, who had their own civilization, culture and art BEFORE the colonists showed up. Yet, THEY were seen as the savage heathens who could have been a "little more accomodating."

Complain all you want to about the unfairness of it all. But if the Indians had adopted a strategy of trying to kill all the whites, they themselves would have been exterminated. They were, for the most part, smart enough to see that this was not a rational approach. They were, in fact, fairly accomodating much of the time, and they have survived because of that. I would infinitely prefer to be a native american than to be a Palestinian. Hell, I'd infinitely prefer it to being just about any typical arab living in the middle east. Accomodation works when the power you are accomodating does not demand your extermination. The state of Israel doesn't demand the extermination of Palestinians. Hamas demands the extermination of Israel.

This isn't about what you consider right and wrong. It's much more fundamental. It's about what is possible and what is not, and who has power and who does not. If you cannot adapt yourself to those realities, questions of right and wrong won't amount to anything but fevered dreams. But hey, you've been living in a fantasy land for a long time, why wake up to reality now?

[shecky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Trading in drugs can certainly get money to an individual, but ultimately it takes money out of an economy. I'm skeptical of this claim, if a person deals drugs to earn anough money to rent a video, it has to be remembered that the person he sold the drugs to might have rented that video also if he hadn't spent the money on drugs.

Couldn't this claim be made of just about anything?

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by shecky
Couldn't this claim be made of just about anything?

No.

If you earn money working at a factory, the factory puts money into a region in the form of its payroll.

[shecky]

Trade is trade, regardless of legality. If a person sells milk (or toys or whatever) to earn enough money to rent a video, it has to be remembered that the person he sold the milk to might have rented that video also if he hadn't spent the money on milk.

[Mycroft]

Quote:

Originally posted by shecky
Trade is trade, regardless of legality. If a person sells milk (or toys or whatever) to earn enough money to rent a video, it has to be remembered that the person he sold the milk to might have rented that video also if he hadn't spent the money on milk.

Except that milk is food and you need food to survive. Had they not spent the money on milk, they would have needed to buy some other kind of food, not a video.

The principle is not just drugs or legal versus illegal trade, it's about trade that brings money and wealth into an economically depressed area versus trade that doesn't. A company payroll brings money into an area, the workers spend their money at local business and it circulates. Selling drugs, prostitution, or even washing peoples cars can support an individual in an area of crisis, but it doesn't draw new wealth in.

Now it is possible that I simply misunderstood Bikewer's meaning. He listened to the program, I didn't. The drug business could help an economy if it did draw in money from the outside. Suppose drugs were brought into Detroit, and then were distributed to other parts of the country. The people making money this way would spend it in Detroit, and that could help keep the Detroit economy afloat during times of high unemployment.

That's one posibility. Is that the way it happened? I dunno, I think we'd have to see the study to know for sure.

[shecky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Except that milk is food and you need food to survive. Had they not spent the money on milk, they would have needed to buy some other kind of food, not a video.

Ok. Then substitute DVDs or whatever. Trade is trade. Doesn't matter if the goods are needed to survive, or simply entertainment.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft

The principle is not just drugs or legal versus illegal trade, it's about trade that brings money and wealth into an economically depressed area versus trade that doesn't.

This doesn't makes sense. Any successful trade will bring in money. Are you arguing durable goods vs services? If that's the case, why not outlaw liquor stores and nail salons, since they tend to have very local clientele any may not draw any direct money from outside the region.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft

A company payroll brings money into an area, the workers spend their money at local business and it circulates.

Drug money circulates, too. Even if it goes out of the country. Latin American drug lord wants that shiny H2, big screen TV, and caviar to impress his friends. Which may make that land in the blighted area attractively priced for developing a new H2 assembly line or electronics warehouse.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mycroft
Selling drugs, prostitution, or even washing peoples cars can support an individual in an area of crisis, but it doesn't draw new wealth in.

Says who? If the drug pusher, whore, or car washer has has a good enough product/service, it draws customers from further away. If business is really good, maybe they expand, franchise, diversify.

And why should trade draw wealth in? Maybe trade enables folks to pull up stakes and leave the crappy neighborhood behind.

[Bikewer]

As I recall (it's been about a year) that's exactly what the researcher was saying. Much of the money coming in to the "inner city" area was from the more affluent surrounding suburbs.
At the time of the study, (which I believe was some years ago) Detroit was in the throes of the "rust belt" situation, with heavy unemployment and little opportunity.

Watching a number of these "Cops" segments where they set up phoney streetcorner dealers, it's amazing how many of the buyers are obviously not from the 'hood.

[zenith-nadir]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto

Israel and terrorism is a good example; everytime a Palestinian "suicider" kills Israelis in a marketplace, a cafe or a bus, Israel responds by leveling Palestinian homes or rocketing a "suspected" terrorist holdout. It never stops. The two have been going back and forth for years with no end in sight. What if, (I love playing this) Israel turned 180° and began helping Palestine become a sovereign country?

Been tried and failed. After ten peace treaties between the Palestinians and Israelis it ended up the Palestinian Authority was more interested in funding and supporting terrorism than it was eradicating it. That fact is so well documented that I need not do it here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
This isn't about what you consider right and wrong.

Most westerners impose their social-"template" onto the Israeli Palestinian conflict and try to make sense of it all. The part they ALWAYS leave out - or have trouble accepting - is the part they have no template for in the western world...islamic fundamentalism and jihad. Native Americans aren't blowing up restaurants across America, Aboriginies aren't blowing up buses across Australia...but somehow add islamic fundamentalism and jihad to the mix and you get car bombs, truck bombs, suicide bombers, 9-11, Madrid, etc.

Therefore even if Israel and the Palestinians make peace there will be islamic fundamentalist groups like Hamas and Hizbollah and Al Queda who want to and enjoy killing jews, AKA zionists - they're goal is to destroy Israel and turn the middle east into one big sloppy theocracy. Unfortunately for everyone involved there are like-minded thugs, dictators, "Kings" and theocracies who support these groups and their fundamentalist ideas.

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
War on drugs, even if it is 30 years or more that the U.S. is fighting the war as hard as ever,

Thats because some people want to use drugs, and no matter how hard they "fight the war" there will always be a demand for drugs. Look how well prohibition worked.... as we all know it failed miserably to stop "drinking".

[Matteo Martini]

Quote:

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

then perhaps unity is not a good thing, and the dead weight should be scrapped.

The Italian Party " Northern League " already tried to do this but with little success. To change the consitution you need many votes and of course the South votes AGAINST any change.
In my opinion the best solution would be federalism, each part of italy collect its taxes and spends the money WITHIN of rits hospitals and its schools.
But this is not possible for the kind of dead-lock mechanism I explained above

[Matteo Martini]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
. . . more of the same solutions to the same problems is the rut people (governments, institutions, etc.) have gotten into in deciding on solutions. Israel and terrorism is a good example; everytime a Palestinian "suicider" kills Israelis in a marketplace, a cafe or a bus, Israel responds by leveling Palestinian homes or rocketing a "suspected" terrorist holdout. It never stops. The two have been going back and forth for years with no end in sight. What if, (I love playing this) Israel turned 180° and began helping Palestine become a sovereign country? What if Israel helped Palestinian merchants and businessmen make a little money? What if Israel suggested SHARING the land and dispersed its populace among the Palestinians? A. radical Palestinians wouldn't be able to point at the "EVIL" Jews, B. "suiciders" wouldn't have a concentrated target to attack (if Palestinians and Israelis lived in close proximity - they would end up killing the people whose support they want). Of course, the solution will NEVER be given a chance, simply because they're much happier pointing fingers and killing each other.

This could well be another example even if it seems that another user contests your possible solution

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
If treatment for addictions (including alcohol and tobacco) were used instead of prison the use of dangerous drugs might actually be curtailed. [/b]

YES!!
I do agree with this!!
This is the kind of possible and prospective ( prespective? ) solution I was thinking about!!

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
The war on terrorism is another great example. If, instead of throwing all our eggs in one basket by fighting in Iraq, we spent all those billions on securing our ports, our transportation system, our railways, chemical plant, nuclear power plants, etc., we might not have to worry so much about so devastating an attack in the future. [/b]

I do not think you can secure ALL the ports of the U. S., all the chemical plants, etc.
Do you know how many plants there are in the U.S.??

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
If we spent more money HELPING others instead of invading them, or infuriating them we might erase the image the world has of us as a bad guy. Just think of the response if the U.S. spent money in middle eastern countries building mosques, schools and hospitals. People would openly laugh when told of all the horrible things the "Great Satan" has done.
[/b]

I do not think Saddam would have allowed the U.S. to help Iraqi people

[Matteo Martini]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bikewer
On Talk of The Nation a couple of years ago, they examined a university study that documented several billions of dollars moving through the greater Detroit area over several years, all from the drug trade.
In this high-unemployment area, drugs were keeping the local economy alive. The mom & pop stores, video rentals, hairdressers and so forth were staying in buisness because the drug trade kept sufficient monies in the system to support these buisnesses.

Maybe that local economy would be even better without drugs?
People selling drugs need people buying drugs.
If people buying drugs use their money to buy vegetables ( example ) the local market for the vegetables goes up and so jobs are created

[Matteo Martini]

Another two examples of " mroe of the same "?

5) This example was taken from Austrian/American psychologist Paul Watzlawick
Pornography, well this is not something BAD at least in my opinion but many people in italy see it as BAD ( Catholics, etc. ) and they tried in the past and try even now ( even if we are getting a little bit more " liberal " now ) to stop it, censoring it
Countries in Northern Europe are more liberal and they are much more " tolerant " with porno tapes and magazines.
The result is that ( according to Paul Watzlawick ) not many Dutch read porno, only horny Italians, Spanish and other guys from South of Italy consume porno magazines made in the North of Europe.

6) Cigarettes. First they said that it was forbidden to smoke in public places, then they put the big labels on the packets of cigarettes, then they forbid to make commercials in F1 championships about cigarettes, ..
Little success, Italians keep smoking.

Am I a little bit " paranoid " or there is a pattern here?

[Bikewer]

Drugs are a desireable commodity. It requires essentially no infrastructure or investment to go into buisness.

People who have money to purchase same will seek you out, and profits are high. Not hard to see why this is an attractive alternative for unemployed, poorly-educated inner-city dwellers.

What else are they going to do? In a scenario like this, do you think that relatively-wealthy suburbanites are going to drive to the ghetto to buy veggies from an open-air stand?

Many of the people involved in marketing drugs already have arrest records, which severely limit the type of legitimate employment available to them. Janitors, food service, that sort of thing. Minimum-wage jobs with little or no benifits.

Again, the lucrative drug trade becomes very attractive.


Our War On Drugs is also creating a permanent underclass of convicted low-level dealers and mules. These people, once "in the system", rarely manage to achieve any sort of success in more legal forms of employment. The "corrections" system in this country is almost totally devoid of any sort of job training, education, or anything else that would help move prisoners from the criminal underclass to something more productive.

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
They were, in fact, fairly accomodating much of the time, and they have survived because of that. I would infinitely prefer to be a native american than to be a Palestinian.

Oh yeah? I wonder how you'd feel about Thanksgiving if you lived like this?
_______

"Life is still hard at Warm Springs, a diminutive town of shoebox ranch houses and a few brick buildings that once served as BIA boarding schools for Indian children.Tribal government and businesses now employ more than 1,100 people--but that leaves unemployment hovering around 50 percent. And car accidents, diabetes, heart disease, and suicide contribute to a life expectancy of just 47 years--about what you'd find in Somalia."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture.../4native_5.htm
_____

How old are you anyway? I'll bet you're a lot closer to dead in Indian years that you'd believe.

[Matteo Martini]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bikewer
Drugs are a desireable commodity. It requires essentially no infrastructure or investment to go into buisness.

People who have money to purchase same will seek you out, and profits are high. Not hard to see why this is an attractive alternative for unemployed, poorly-educated inner-city dwellers.

What else are they going to do? In a scenario like this, do you think that relatively-wealthy suburbanites are going to drive to the ghetto to buy veggies from an open-air stand?

Many of the people involved in marketing drugs already have arrest records, which severely limit the type of legitimate employment available to them. Janitors, food service, that sort of thing. Minimum-wage jobs with little or no benifits.

Again, the lucrative drug trade becomes very attractive.

Our War On Drugs is also creating a permanent underclass of convicted low-level dealers and mules. These people, once "in the system", rarely manage to achieve any sort of success in more legal forms of employment. The "corrections" system in this country is almost totally devoid of any sort of job training, education, or anything else that would help move prisoners from the criminal underclass to something more productive.

So, what do you propose?

[Bikewer]

Hehe- anyone can document problems....I havn't heard anyone propose an overall solution.

It's pretty apparent that the current enforcement policy isn't working very well. There has been some movement towards so-called "drug courts", which offer no incarceration in return for strict supervision, and a flunk-and-you're-in-jail policy.
Seems to be working in some areas.

There are a few pundits who maintain we should treat drug use as a public-health policy, rather than a criminal offense.

Workable? I don't know. It seems the experimentation along these lines in Europe has been a mixed bag.

Part of the problem involves foriegn relations. With impoverished countries like Columbia, Afghanistan, and Mexico furnishing much of the raw material for the most popular "hard" drugs, it would seem that the promotion of financial stability and/or peace in these countries would help get people out of the drug buisness. I understand that the opium production in Afghanistan is above pre-Taliban levels. Not much money over there....

How about basic research into the essential human problem of why so many people desire intoxication? The use of drugs of all kinds is pervasive throughout humanity. Something is going on there that does not seem to be a matter of concern for essential research.
I have speculated that depression is more widespread in the population than is generally believed, and that large numbers of people are self-medicating though intoxicants and euphorics.

Consider that mental health care is a gray area even in industrialized nations, and that large segments of the population have no access to mental health services whatever, this might be an area for study.

[Matteo Martini]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bikewer
Hehe- anyone can document problems....I havn't heard anyone propose an overall solution.

What about offering a global health service to people who are addicted of drugs?
The service should offer:
1) medical and psychological advice;
2) medicines if needed;
3) the quantity of drug they need to survive " well " with your addiction.

Cocaine could be cultivated in police-controlled fields in the U.S.

This service should be given only to people already addicted, not to anyone of course!!

This solution would have some advantages:
1) Cocaine and heroine given to drug addicted can be pure ( i.e. not mixed with poor substances and therefore even worse for the health );
2) The drug mafia will suffer enormous damages, they would not be interested in pushing young people to drugs knowing that, after one year, they could turn to Health Services and have cocaine for free;
3) Drug addicted could have free medical advices over their health status

[Bikewer]

Interesting ideas, but with the current political climate...

We have a government that since the 60's has staunchly opposed any notion of leqalizing (or even de-criminalizing) marijuana, the most benign of intoxicants.

We cannot furnish health care to ordinary citizens, much less the drug-addicted. Proposals to enact a more socialized form of health care are met with howls of outrage by the right, and more than a few of the left.

The thirst for intoxicants is a given, at this point. Cut off heroin and cocaine, and something else will fill the bill. Methamphetamine (the poor man's cocaine) is an enormous problem throughout much of rural America, with my state being ranked near the top of production.

[Ziggurat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Oh yeah? I wonder how you'd feel about Thanksgiving if you lived like this?

Next time you hear about American indians getting killed for criticising their tribal chiefs, you'll have a point. Short of that, go bite yourself.

[billydkid]

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
I was just wondering about some unrelated problems in the world today ( and of yesterday ) and about how they seem to suffer from the same " more of the same " syndrome.

1) As I posted in the post " World Hunger ", the delevoped countries have already given to Africa some 400 billions of dollars with little benefit to Africa economy apparently. Economist Erixon suggests that the more the aid to Africa the worse to its economy( link: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=44836 )

2) War on drugs, even if it is 30 years or more that the U.S. is fighting the war as hard as ever, drug abuse shows little signs of decline. Also, drug money helped the increase in corruption of the police and the creation of " gangs " in all major U.S. and European cities

3) Same thing in the past with Proibitionism in the U.S.: the fight to alcool lead to corruption in the police, the rise of Al Capone, etc.

4) In Italy, it is about 50 or more years that the regions of the North are much more rich than the regions of the South, and yearly a part of the money gathered by taxes from the North goes down to the South as " aids ".
Some claim that all these money only help the South " Mafia " stay in power and prevent ( and not help ! ) the South from develop

Four different examples in different countries and in different years that the principle of the " more of the same " leads to the strenghtening of the problem, not to its solution.

What do you think?

Anybody with any sense knows the drug war has been a continuing disaster for this country. The problem is the drug war has become a huge industry the primary interest of which is perpetuating itself and perpetuating the myths by which is justifies itself.

[CBL4]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ziggurat
They were, in fact, fairly accomodating much of the time, and they have survived because of that. I would infinitely prefer to be a native american than to be a Palestinian.

It sounds reasonable but the Indians actually had it much worse. According to Jared Diamond (in "Guns, Germs and Steel") approximately 95% of the aboriginal people in the Americas were killed by disease.

One example he gives is of some Mississippi valley tribes who were flourishing in 1500. By the time the Europeans got there a 100 years later, the tribes were basically gone. It was accidental and probably unavoidable genocide. Unless contact was delayed until the 20th century, the Indians were doomed regardless of European intentions.

CBL

[CBL4]

Matteo Martini,

You make some excellent points. If someone does not learn from failures, he is a fool. In some of the cases, however we are learning.

The west is trying new things in aid. Some developing countries are looking at what works.

The neo-prohibitionists tried harsher penalties which failed. They foolishly refuse to acknowledge the failure. The extrimist even insist on jailing ailing people instead of admitting that marijuana can be helpful.

CBL

[Mephisto]

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
If people buying drugs use their money to buy vegetables ( example ) the local market for the vegetables goes up and so jobs are created

Good point, but wishful thinking. Until you can get the same sense of euphoria from squash or broccoli as you can from drugs, they'll never compete.

[Matteo Martini]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mephisto
Good point, but wishful thinking. Until you can get the same sense of euphoria from squash or broccoli as you can from drugs, they'll never compete.

Wait, wait.
I was just answering to the ( in my opinion ) flawed assumption that drug market generates job.
My point is that any market generates jobs, and if all the jobs in the drug industry are gone, new jobs can be created elsewhere.
The main point is how to kill the drug industry, not how to save the drug industry`s jobs

[Matteo Martini]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bikewer
We have a government that since the 60's has staunchly opposed any notion of leqalizing (or even de-criminalizing) marijuana, the most benign of intoxicants.

No, no I am not in favor of legalizing drugs, just to make them as a part of a complete package of assistance for the already drug-addicted.

[Matteo Martini]

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
Matteo Martini,

The west is trying new things in aid. Some developing countries are looking at what works.

CBL

Do you now more about this?

[Matteo Martini]

Quote:

Originally posted by billydkid
Anybody with any sense knows the drug war has been a continuing disaster for this country. The problem is the drug war has become a huge industry the primary interest of which is perpetuating itself and perpetuating the myths by which is justifies itself.

So,　you are saying that the vast majority of the Americans, who are in favor of prohibitionism, is just plain wrong?
Why?

[Bikewer]

I would hazard a guess that it is an emotional response, much like the response against gay marriage or a variety of other things.

A fairly large percentage of the population sees "drugs" in general to be "wrong", or "bad". Never mind that thoroughly legal alchohol and tobacco kill vastly more people each year than do all illicit drugs put together.

It's not a rational response. I think you would find very little public support for wide-scale legalisation, or even de-criminalisation.

[CBL4]

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
So,　you are saying that the vast majority of the Americans, who are in favor of prohibitionism, is just plain wrong?
Why?

I would for the simple reason that it does not work. Unless they have a new twist to it, all they can expect is continued drug use, lots of prisons, lots of violence and lots of corruption. If someone comes up with a significantly different plan, I am will to listen but I have not heard of one.

I also disagree with prohibition from a libertarian POV but that is a more debatable topic. The current drug "war" is a failure and always has been a failure. I do not see that as a debatable topic.

CBL

[CBL4]

Quote:

Originally posted by Matteo Martini
Do you know more about this?

The conditional aid, the microloans and NGOs are changes to long standing aid policies.

As far as the developing countries themselves, some are trying more market friendly solutions e.g. less subsidies, privatizing businesses, reducing corruption, democracy, etc.

Time will tell whether these ideas work. They seem to be reasonable plans that take into account human nature, economics and, perhaps most importantly, bypass the central governments. This is a big plus over communist and massive, centralized aid and development.

CBL

[Matteo Martini]

Quote:

Originally posted by CBL4
The conditional aid, the microloans and NGOs are changes to long standing aid policies.

CBL

Do you know of any serious resource on the internet or book about those topics?