They hardly ever have anything intelligent to contribute to the debates in open forums and always avoid answering questions that prove them wrong. It's almost funny how they resort to name-calling and think that anyone who questions the "infinite wisdom" of the US Gov't is a whacked-out, flag-burning junkie or stoner.
2007-03-15 05:38:55 · 18 answers · asked by S D Modiano 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Drug War supporters are puritans who want black and white answers where there are none. The fact that alcohol prohibition only served to make gangsters rich while making hardly a dent in consumption - exactly as drug prohibition is doing now - is something they refuse to acknowledge because it destroys their whole rationale for the war in the first place.
Drug Warriors would rather destroy someone's life for indulging in something illegal than rehabilitate that person, even if no harm came to anyone. In a way, drugs do cause great harm - because they are illegal and punish people for mere disobedience, which is a big deal to these uptight control freaks.
2007-03-15 05:52:56 · answer #1 · answered by hznfrst 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What a loaded question. First off you generalized that everyone who defends the War on Drugs are ignorant bigots who are so full of hate? Bold statement but a gross exaggeration. Some maybe, but all? Your reasoning is flawed.
The bottom line is this, while you are right it can have up-sides to making them legal, the drugs are safer, it takes money out of the hands of Mafia's/cartels, etc.
But take a look at the other side of the spectrum. First off laws in this country are a result of the majority of voters (either through the election of public officials or through actual votes) That being said, the majority of people in the United States do not want to legalize drugs. Why? Because everybody has had a family member, friend, or acquaintance that has died as the result of substance abuse. Do you have any idea how magnified that number would be if they legalized everything? Not to mention have you seen how meth has been spreading like wildfire through not only the United States but worldwide? BTW this is when it is illegal, can you imagine what it would be like if it were legal?
While in an ideal world, a war on drugs would not be necessary, but we obviously do not live in an ideal world. Tell me one positive thing that would be a result from ending the War on Drugs? And I'm not talking positives from the dealer or druggie perspective, what good would this do society?
2007-03-15 05:57:47 · answer #2 · answered by jay k 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why are people who hate those who defend the War on Drugs and call them names like "ignorant bigots" all ignorant bigots and full of hate?
They hardly ever have anything intelligent to contribute to the debates in open forums (like YA) and always avoid asking serious questions so they can be answered. It's really sad how they resort to name-calling and think that anyone who questions their "infinite wisdom" is simply an ignorant bigot.
2007-03-15 05:48:01 · answer #3 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I personally feel that both sides have some good points.
There are indeed problems with the "war" on drugs. Opponents look at overcrowded prisons, full of poor minorities as evidence of the problem. Proponents look at the consequences of drug abuse.
The problem with the war is not the war, but more the execution. I think it's a fight worth fighting, but we need to take a better approach and stop worrying about petty stuff, using racial profiling, entrapment, targeting the poor, and not devoting equal attention to prevention and education.
The problem is not so much the war as it is how the war is being fought.
2007-03-22 17:04:48 · answer #4 · answered by boaltlaw88 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Obviously there will be many negative emotional reactions to this issue. Most people are not well informed in this area but just know that drugs are bad. If you really want to engage in a productive exploration of the issue, you can try to correct misinformation where you can, ignore some of the nonsense and present your side of the issue in a calm, dignified manner.
2007-03-23 04:59:40 · answer #5 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Go to any pediatric ward, in any hospitral, in any major city and talk to those who tend to addicted babies...then come back and I will discuss with you about the ignorance of those who defend the war on drugs.
Personally, I could care less if someone wants to kill themselfs doing drugs...I just hate the losers that have kids (unprotected sex) while using drugs or those who sell drugs to minors.
2007-03-15 05:46:35 · answer #6 · answered by mom tree 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Categorizing "people who defend the war on drugs" as "ignorant bigots" is in itself an ignorant comment. Unless you personally know each and every one of them. Its like saying everyone who lives in the south are rednecks.
2007-03-15 05:46:18 · answer #7 · answered by Pandora 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In reading your post, you yourself do not come across as a particularly well-spoken, intelligent, unbiased and educated writer. On the other hand, I've met people on both sides of the argument who are very bright and articulate (as well as many ignoramuses). I'd say that people are people, and you would do well to address your own writing style if you want to distinguish yourself from the people you're putting down.
2007-03-15 05:43:21 · answer #8 · answered by charmedchiclet 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
talk about name calling look at your question. And exactly what part of stopping drugs from coming into America are you against? Drugs breed crime. Now if you want to talk about legalizing Marianna for medicinal purposes. That is a whole diffrent ball game.
2007-03-15 05:45:07 · answer #9 · answered by Shelly t 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, the very use of the word "war" tends to bring that out. If it was called the Battle against Addiction or the Fight for something, you would tend to get different folks attention. Seriously, if I was involved, I would be making use of a thesaurus...
2007-03-15 05:43:35 · answer #10 · answered by Rowena 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋