Bear

How on earth can this carry on without international humanitarian intervention?

Because, unfortunately, international relations are based on power and not law (despite whatever else they say).

I agree with you that it's an absolute fucken disgrace. But I ain't gonna blame (or boycott) ordinary Israeli's for it I'm afraid.

I don't know any decent person who would commit a crime because someone else told them to, unless their defense is being a fucking sub-mental xenophobic bootlicker.

Really? The evidence suggests that the majority of people will do bad things if someone in authority tells them to. There is was a very famous experiment known as 'The Milgram Experiment' about it, although loads more research has been done since then. If most people really would point blank refuse to obey evil orders there would be far less atrocities in the world.

Are you really suggesting that the people who physically shot jews in the head in concentration camps are blameless?

No, I'm suggesting that there are degrees of evil and there is a huge difference between doing things that you don't want to do, but are scared not to do, and ordering things because you want to see them happen.

But democratic governments in capitalist states serve the demands of the people within (thus technically making the people responsible - whether or not this is the reality, I've personally no idea). Where exactly does blame lie in any conflict? On what individual's head?

These things are way complicated and things usually aren't black and white because life isn't but as a pretty general rule the people who order stuff and actually carry it out are responsible. Would every single German have been responsible for Hitler? Is every old German alive today really responsible for that? I think not. What do you think KimyReizeger?

Actually I think giving the order is probably worse than carrying it out, I think most people would do something bad if someone in a position of authority told them to and said they'd be in trouble if they didn't . Giving the order is morally worse I think, because it's something they actually want to happen, rather than something they're to weak or scared not to do.

Being Israeli though, the members of this band *will* have served in the IDF and therefore complicit in the crimes of their government. Unless of course they are conscientious objectors?

Do you really think it's that black and white though? Are all Israeli's who serve in the IDF (as they are pretty much required to) some sort of criminals in your eyes?

Cannabis reclassification (so I read) is due soon, probably next week if the newspapers are right.

There is a good (and very opinionated) article by Simon Jenkins on the Guardian website about it anyone's interested Simon Jenkins: The only message being sent is of cowardice and stupidity | Comment is free | The Guardian

When we killed millions of Iraqi's due to years of harsh sanctions we were basically making those innocent people pay for the policies of Saddam Hussein. I didn't think it was fair to make those innocents pay for their governments policies so I therefore don't agree with boycotting a band (who's members views I know nothing about) just because of where they happened to be born either. That seems unfair too. They're no more responsible for their government than I am for mine.

Just my views although no doubt Stripey will have a problem with something I've just written there and rant about how I have no fucken clue and don't know a damn thing and simply have absolutely know idea of what I'm talking about, and that further posts of mine are not worth reading because I clearly have no clue about anything etc, etc...

Damn it.

I wish they'd put as much effort into having 'ned sweeps' as they do immigration ones, but immigrants are an easy target I guess.

You have no idea what you're talking about, again.

you're pathetically uninformed.

Gee... I don't have much going for me, do I? Could list more comments like this if I went back a few pages, but what's the point?. . . . . . .

Stripey, have you ever considered I might have read many of the same things you have, weighted up the evidence (as I'm sure you have), and just reached a different set of conclusions? Thanks for the link to the Robert Fisk thing by the way, I've actually read a lot of his articles before in the Independent (not sure if you consider that to be part of the "gutter press" or not though).

This thread is about the demo planned on Saturday I don't want to totally derail it thread so I'm going to respond to your points about the civil war in Iraq, the ideology of the Taliban, the illegal drugs trade destabilising 3rd world producer countries and what could be done with heroin addicts under a policy regulation once, and very quickly, and leave it at that.

The civil war in Iraq,

Sorry no. I don't believe the Americans are actively trying to encourage the Iraqi's to slaughter each other. The war appears to have gone badly wrong for the USA rather than along the lines of a sinister plan that's benefited them. Bush sacked advisor's for saying it could cost $100 billion (I think it was), the cost of the war has now eclipsed even the most pessimistic predictions; and the deficit it has caused has badly damaged America's currency. The Iraq war has now cost, in real terms, more than America's 13 year war in Vietnam. A civil war in Iraq would be a disaster for America, it could spill over into other countries and affect the West's access to oil. I was against the war because I thought it might turn out like this, it has all the hallmarks of being a complete fuck up. There is also plenty of evidence for me to believe that some groups in Iraq want to kill each other. Saddam's ruling Sunni regime committed terrible crimes against the Kurds (who I think would like their own state) and the Shia. Religious Sunni zealots have crossed into Iraq and are slaughtering the Shia (who they consider to be heretics who deserve to die) with suicide bombs and they're blowing up their mosques. This is leading to revenge killings against Sunni's, which leads to revenge killings by Sunni's etc, etc... There is also plenty of natural resources to fight over. Battles for oil fields, grudges, revenge attacks, religious divisions and zealotory, plenty of guns etc... Plenty evidence that they're doing this all by themselves... Now I know that you already know all of this. The difference is you have weighted up the evidence for yourself and reached a different conclusion, that's all. It doesn't mean that I'm just an ignorant gutter press reading twat who deserves your contempt, although if that's what you think of me I really couldn't give a shit.

The ideology of the Taliban,

There is plenty of evidence to suggest the Taliban (especially the foreign ones who invaded Afghanistan to spread their ideology) and sheltered Osama Bin Laden have a very similar ideology to Osama Bin Laden and the Whabbists who fund it. These people want the restoration of the Caliphate, and that's just for starters. As for opium production the Taliban did not destroy the stocks of the drug they said they wanted to eradicate, we know this because Afghanistan's stocks were dumped on market just before the US and British invaded, I can only presume they were worried we destroyed them. Apparently prices were as cheap as $30 a kilo before the ban, shot up to $700 a kilo after they banned it and dumping them their stocks before the invasion reduced the price to around $100 (or so they say anyway) The Taliban opium connection - Middle East Times There is also the fact that when the Taliban banned opium they were in the process of trying to get the world to recognise their regime. And in Afghanistan right now, the highest levels of opium production just happen to be in the areas where the Taliban is strongest. Of course, I know you probably already know this. You've just reached a different conclusion, which is fine.

The war on drugs destabilising 3rd world producer countries,

Actually to much for this time at night. The evidence that the Taliban in Afghanistan and various groups in South America get funding via illegal drug production is huge, there is also the problem of the money corrupting their government in the form of bribes etc... Masses of evidence for that point of view here Transform : TDPF

What to do for heroin addicts,

Well I'd suggest coping a country with a policy that actually works. How about Swiss model, that's proven to work.

But do you see any real evidence of that?

I mean it's not the USA that is using suicide bombers to slaughter the Shia, is it?

Is it in the USA's interest to see a civil war in Iraq? If anything it looks to me like they fucked the whole thing up so badly they are spending billions sending extra troops there in a desperate attempt to prevent one from happening. Iraq has been a complete and utter disaster, but I can't honestly believe they (or we) wanted this disaster to happen. I really don't think they wanted, or expected, to be trapped a Vietnam part II type quagmire having to send tens of thousands of troops to prevent the place descending into all out civil war.

Yeah no crystal ball and no idea what you're talking about either. The secterian division of Iraq is totally artifical, has no precedent and has only been encouraged and stimulated by the americans because it's in their interest to get them fighting amongst themselves instead of fighting the occupiers.

So you're saying that the only reason the Iraqi's are slaughtering each other is because the Americans have encouraged them to? Nothing to do with it being a tribal society made up of different ethnic and religious groups, some off whom hate each other and have scores to settle for things done under Saddam's time? Nothing to do with the Sunni terrorists from all over the world crossing the borders and blowing up Shia Mosques to start a civil war, made worse by the fact the country is awash with weapons? Do you really believe the whole reason the Iraqi's are slaughtering each other is because the Americans are encouraging them? C'mon Honestly?

Anti-drug policies have nothing to do with the destabilisation of "3rd world producer countries". The taleban had all but eliminated the production of raw opium in afghanistan, now we and the yanks went in and "destabilised" the country, bumper harvests are being reported and more heroin than ever is going to hit the streets of the west. This is because of a policy of military adventurism, not because of anti-drug laws.

I was actually thinking about the long running civil wars, funded by the cocaine trade, in South America and the corruption drug money causes in their governments - it's all very destablising. I don't know if the Taleban banned opium production to push the price of their stock piles up (which they apparently kept on selling), or if they genuinely wanted it stopped, but I do know the war lords in Afganistan are getting some of their funding from it now. I also know that the Taleban are probably the most brutal bunch of hate-filled cunts on the planet who's goal was nothing short of dragging the entire world back into the darkages. Life under the Taleban would be hellish, I've nothing good to say about them.

Do you really think a fucking heroin addict cares who they buy the hit from? They will still go out robbing, or prositituting themselves regardless of wether the state or a mafia has control of the drug. It doesn't matter who controls these drugs there will always be the same crime statistics, unless you are proposing giving the stuff away free.

Personally I see heroin addiction as more of a social and medical problem than a criminal one and as such believe it probably should be prescribed, so yes, in a sense it would be 'free'. No worse than giving the methidone only more likely to work I think.

I'll reply to the rest of your posts when I have more time, maybe. Wasn't gonna reply to any of it because I'm tired but the 'Americans want Iraqis to slaughter each other' post really stuck out and made we wanna ask because I couldn't believe what I was reading. You honestly think the USA wants to stay in Iraq forever and is trying to provoke a civil war there?

Certainly cannabis induced mental illness is fact and will be severely traumatic for the sufferer and their friends and families but would incidents in this rise if it was legalised? Someone get me some stats from Holland or something.....

Here's an interesting stat from the UK. Since cannabis was reclassified from class B to class C and made slightly less illegal it's use has actually fallen. Meanwhile the number of cases of mental illness which some people attributing to cannabis use has risen from 1.2% to 1.4% (I think). So whilst cases of mental illness have risen, use of the substance blamed for it has actually fallen.

If there is a link, and I personally think there is, it may be due to stronger strains. And that's just a result of prohibition, no regulation or quality control. Alcohol prohibition gave the USA moonshine and dangerous bath tub gin, cannabis prohibition (or rather a lack of regulation in this case) has given us 'super-skunk' and crack cocaine.

Oh thats right because your right to get high is more important than reigning in miltarly adventurism by our government which has caused the deaths of over a million innocent civilians in the last 5 years alone.

As it just so happens I protested against the Iraq war very strongly and helped organise the demonstrations against it in Aberdeen. I also wrote to my MP urging them not to support the invasion. What to do now that all hell has been unleashed is another matter. I think they'll be a civil war and 3 states and that we need to be prepared for that, but that's just my opinion, I don't have crystal ball.

You don't really know anything about me, so please don't presume too. Just because I care about one cause doesn't mean I don't care about another.

But stopping the drugs war is about more than just my right to get high. The government's anti-drug policies are responsible for the majority of crime in this country, organised crime controlling the 2nd biggest commodity market in the world (after oil), and 3rd world producer countries being destabilised.

No, it's the same issue - demanding the removal of section28 was itself an act of a prejudicial special interest group attempting to get the government to use the framework of the law to impose their own particular morality on wider society.

Ummmmm, no. Wanting the removal of section 28 was wanting a piece of discrimination removed. Section 28 had the effect of making it illegal for teachers to 'promote' homosexuality which, at that time, made it illegal for teachers to say that homosexual relationships were equal with what the state was, at that time, promoting (hetrosexual marriage). Wanting that removed was not an attempt to get special rights or privileges, it was an attempt to have equality. At that time the law prevented the two being called equal. Political correctness and all that came way after the first anti-section 28 campaign.

utter simplistic drivel.

Actually it was a joke, it was something Menzies Campbell used to say given every opportunity.

So what's the dividing line, if any? Last decent attempt I remember to find it was here ALL NEW! Political Survey

Um...you can't really use that argument because the gay rights movement has resulted in the government legislating private morality.

Pro-homosexual protesters lobbying to have homosexuality and related hate-crimes enshrined in law annoy me as much as the christian nutbags who oppose them and want their own agenda made law. Both are groups of ideological extremists attempting to use the law to enforce their moral prejudices on wider society - and this includes pro-legalisation of drugs campaigners - None of whom have any business telling the rest of us how to live our lives.

Yes I can. Wanting a piece of discrimination like section 28 removed and same sex couples to have the right to form civil partnerships is not the same as wanting legislation outlawing hate speech on the grounds of sexual orientation. The strong anti-hate stuff came much later. As far as I remember, in the early 1990's they were fighting for equal rights, not special protections, that came later and is a different issue entirely.

and by arguing against this restriction you ultimately argue against an entire ideology, within which pot-smoking is a mere trifle.

No shit. The New dividing line in British politics is liberal vs authoritarian, didn't you know?...

what's the likelyhood of cannabis being legalised in aberdeen?

About the same as the chances that section 28 was going to be repealed any time soon, or that gays were going to be allowed to serve in the military around the time I left school in the early 1990's. In other words zero, in the short term.

In many ways the opposition to the war on drugs reminds me of the gay rights lobby back then. It seemed like a hopeless cause. The majority of people really didn't have a problem with gay rights but they were to scared to openly support them due to fear of being labelled as a homosexual in the closet, just as people automatically assume that I'm 'obviously just a stoner' for arguing for an end to the war on drugs and pragmatic policies to replace prohibition. The whole opposition to gay rights back then was based on prejudice and a desire to see the state legislate private morality, and the bigots appeared to be winning...

They banned me having a fag with my pint! And who stuck up for me then?!!

Actually I did. Although you can't compare being prevented from lighting up in an enclosed public space to tobacco be declared an illegal drug punishable by a two year jail sentence (soon to be 5) for merely possessing it anywhere for any reason.

My opinion of the smoking ban was there should have been exemptions and that the anti-smoking stuff is starting to way to far, did you see this idea they had

recently? Permission to smoke? That'll be 10 - Times Online

Comments about the article here LDYS View topic - Latest great idea, smokers too need a licence to buy cigs...

"I don't smoke cigarettes, I just empty the tobacco out of them, mix it with manky hash (which I have no idea what it contains but heres a clue Evil Weeds - Cannabis Information - Red Eye Express - Making Soap Bar In Yorkshire), roll it up in green rizla thick enough to wipe your arse with and then smoke it without a filter, all the while desperately pretending I'm some kind of intellectual psychonaught living in haight-ashbury in the 60s in an attempt to block out the fact I actually spend all day playing xbox, eating haribo and wanking"

Actually if I smoked weed I'd be sacked... And there's no need to be such an asshole either.

Still a bloody funny post though...

all drugs should be legalised, it's a darwinian holocaust of the thick waiting to happen and I'm all for it.

That made me laugh... But I ain't really wanting to see that happen either

Very good article here on what legalisation/regulation could look like http://www.tdpf.org.uk/Transform_After_the_War_on_Drugs.pdf (takes a wee minute to load)

Why exactly are you pissed off that it is illegal?

Is it because you are a stoner or because you actually have a medical condition which cannabis could provide pain relief for?

Neither. Not everyone who happens to give a damn about these things is either a stoner or ill you know I don't smoke cigarettes either but I wouldn't try to tell you that you can't or support criminalising anyone who does.

Anyway, to answer your question, I suppose I want to see cannabis legalised because I see the law as unjust oppressive bullshit to be blunt about it. It criminalises millions of otherwise law abiding people, creates a huge black market, and puts huge profits in the hands of organised crime. It massively increases the harm that the substance itself causes (both to the user and society) and the whole thing comes from a desire to legislate private morality. It's also waste of all that tax money that I'm forced to pay every month.

Just wait, one day they'll want to ban something that you like, and they'll be nobody left to stick up for you.

I might go just to see how well organised stoners are.

That's quite funny.

To be honest I reckon about 15 people if that will turn up *blush*

That's not the point though, I'm still going cos I'm pissed off that weed is illegal, in fact I'm so pissed off about it I'm tempted to stand as an LCA candidate, just to piss off my MP. 8-)

silly stoners.

Why? Why is it silly to want a law changed? Cos after all, prohibition has worked so well hasn't it? Transform : TDPF

Hi,

In case anyone is interested in going I just thought I'd post and let everyone know there is going to be a demonstration in favour of legalising cannabis in Aberdeen starting at 2pm on Saturday the 3rd of May at the Castlegate Worldwide Marijuana March

Dunno what the turn out will be like, but if any bands support the cause there *might* be a crowed to play music too. Then again maybe not...