Remove Advertisements

Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notice.

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Gab » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:16 am

Klaudandus wrote:http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395812,00.asp
Apparently, only a fraction of anonymous backed down, but OpCartel is still planned to proceed.


I don't agree on your take that drug cartels will simply just give up though. Organized Crime is not just about moving drugs, but also firearms, racketeering, kidnapping, piracy. Just because you whither one head, does not mean they cannot try to recover by going harder after other forms of crime.


I like that Anon is thinking of supporting legalization.

Barrett Brown wrote:"Fundamentally, there's no way to stop the Zetas or any other cartel other than legalizing drugs, which is something that's more of a long-term ambitious effort that Anonymous could potentially pursue."


Sure the cartels have other means of generating revenue but drugs are far and away the number one revenue generator for them. Taking away the revenue from illegal drugs would cripple the cartels.
User avatar
Gab
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:54 am
Location: Wish you were here

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:25 am

Gab wrote:If I came across as if I were suggesting that the consumption of drugs or alcohol with the intent of being intoxicated was abuse than I apologize. Initially I was just trying to draw comparisons of ending prohibition to legalization of illicit drugs. Because in my mind they are very similar and a precedence was set with the ending of prohibition.

Regarding Schedule 1 drugs which includes Marijuana,taken from the DEA's website:

Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.


You say other dangerous things are legal because they have other reasonable purposes. Because of the classification of schedule 1 drugs little to no research and development is allowed and therefore we are unable to understand the full potential of some these substances. Ecstasy or MDMA is under this scheduling and was originally used to treat PTSD and aid in different types of therapies. Marijuana has obvious reasonable purposes as well. I don't understand how they can classify these drugs in this way when it is obvious there are some reasonable purposes for the drugs, especially considering some were at a one point in time considered medically accepted. It isn't fair to dismiss these drugs as having no other reasonable purpose.

You are bound and determined to get bogged down in this dead end tangent aren't you? It's so common among proponents for legalization, I just don't get why so many can't let this notion go. Essentially, you are trying to find some hole somewhere in the logic behind making drugs illegal on the basis of their effects. It'll never happen, ulimately because mechanically there's enough subjectivity involved and because these drugs are truely unique beasts. The desired intended use of them is designed only to make someone high, which isn't valid for any other substance.

To the point at hand, part of having a reasonable use is within the context of reasonable alternatives. If the only way we could create an explosion with force was by using nuclear bombs, then we'd be using them for demolition. But once we figure out how to use TNT which works better without all the negatives, those nukes would become illegal.

I don't think that THC (the primary active ingredient in pot) is generally illegal. You can get a prescription for it, you likely won't (though you may if you have a green card) because it really sucks. I have a friend with his green card, and when he's in the hospital that's what he has to use and he hates it. Pure THC doesn't include some of the minor mellowing agents that you find in pot, and so it's a rather unpleasurable experience for many.

Inhaling pot is terrible for you so that will never be an established treatment from the medical profession, save for the terminally ill. I know know, here comes the vaporizers and edibles argument... Ultimately you are still barking up the wrong tree. Even if the ADA accepted that use, it would still be illegal without a prescription, and would only be legal in a particular form which would tightly monitored and would do nothing to the black market except expand it. Make the social arguments, they are much more compelling, and much closer to the heart of the matter anyhow.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:33 am

You are bound and determined to get bogged down in this dead end tangent aren't you?


http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5- ... think.html

And this goes for both sides.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11052
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:57 am

Klaudandus wrote:
You are bound and determined to get bogged down in this dead end tangent aren't you?


http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5- ... think.html

And this goes for both sides.

Oh the irony ...

That said I have no emotional connection to this topic, I just think that's a mechanically flawed argument that detracts from the much more compelling arguments.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Tev » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:26 am

Klaudandus wrote:http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html

And this goes for both sides.


#5 - True, in most cases

#4 - Utterly False. I think this whole point is invalid, because it is calling an apple a cat. The human mind puts things on a priority scale that is very flexible based on a wide number of factors. For instance, using the same example from a different perspective, a criminal is far less likely to break in and commit a crime in a home that is armed than one that is not. Ironically he stated "As experts point out, when there is strong emotion tied to the unlikely event, our ability to continue to see it as unlikely goes out the window." Which is to say that Emotion, not a lack of understanding of probability is the reason your are more wrong than you think. This ties directly into point #5.

#3 - Ehh, conditionally true, really depends on the mental state of the person and how committed they are to the subject matter. A Doctorate defending their thesis is more likely to suffer from this than some teenage girl stating which boy they think is cuter.

#2 - Not always true, this is one of those nature/nurture arguments so I'll leave it at that.

#1 - True, but it's usually the source of the Fact, not the Fact itself, that is the issue. I'm more likely to believe a friend than a complete stranger.

Bored at work so I felt the need to add my 2 cents regarding this link, feel free to ignore me completely now :)
Tev
 
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Klaudandus » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:27 am

To be honest, it was mostly aimed at him. But I thought it would be an interesting read for both sides =P
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 11052
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Gab » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:29 am

Klaudandus wrote:To be honest, it was mostly aimed at him. But I thought it would be an interesting read for both sides =P


Sadly it's blocked for me at work...
User avatar
Gab
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:54 am
Location: Wish you were here

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:40 am

It's basically an argument that humans are bad arguers and reasons why we stick to positions that are obviously wrong among other things. It's certainly reasonable when looking at internet discussions en masse whether it is an accurate reflection of a discrete example is another matter altogether.

It's not a particularly great fit for us because I don't disagree with your points,but I disagree that they matter. Just referring to the drugs vs. alcohol concept,not the social stuff.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Gab » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:48 am

Fridmarr wrote:It's basically an argument that humans are bad arguers and reasons why we stick to positions that are obviously wrong among other things. It's certainly reasonable when looking at internet discussions en masse whether it is an accurate reflection of a discrete example is another matter altogether.

It's not a particularly great fit for us because I don't disagree with your points,but I disagree that they matter. Just referring to the drugs vs. alcohol concept,not the social stuff.


Ah ok. The point I was originally trying to make when comparing prohibition to legalization was to emphasize the
social matters not necessarily to compare alcohol to illicit drugs. I was merely referring to what happened after prohibition to the mafia, drop in drinking rates and drop in crime rate. As legalization could have similar social impacts. Just got a little carried away trying to defend the comparison I suppose.
User avatar
Gab
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:54 am
Location: Wish you were here

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby aureon » Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:04 pm

Tev wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html
#4 - Utterly False. I think this whole point is invalid, because it is calling an apple a cat. The human mind puts things on a priority scale that is very flexible based on a wide number of factors. For instance, using the same example from a different perspective, a criminal is far less likely to break in and commit a crime in a home that is armed than one that is not. Ironically he stated "As experts point out, when there is strong emotion tied to the unlikely event, our ability to continue to see it as unlikely goes out the window." Which is to say that Emotion, not a lack of understanding of probability is the reason your are more wrong than you think. This ties directly into point #5.

You basically described "Humans don't get probability due to emotion", huh.
Cause is better described, but the effect remains.
User avatar
aureon
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:41 pm

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Kelaan » Thu Nov 03, 2011 2:52 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Inhaling pot is terrible for you so that will never be an established treatment from the medical profession, save for the terminally ill.

And yet, we lose over 400 thousand people per year to tobacco, which is legal to use, and very dangerous. The CDC calls it "our #1 killer". It's highly addictive, and smoking it has been shown to be extremely toxic. I haven't seen an argument for keeping pot illegal that doesn't also seem to apply equally (or more so) to cigarettes. It impairs your behavior less than pot, at least, but from what little I've read it's much worse for your health.

Similarly, alcohol is both addictive and destructive. It impairs your behavior so much that we have taken legal measures to punish severely anyone who does things like operate heavy machinery (cars) while drunk. It can destroy your liver, over time, when taken in excess (but has good effects in small quantities). On the surface, this seems very similar to pot. There are many people who will never want to use either, and won't be forced to, but just as Prohibition showed us that people will go to great lengths to ensure its availability, so has the "war on drugs" shown us the same w/ other drugs like pot.
User avatar
Kelaan
 
Posts: 4036
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:01 pm

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Thalia » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:16 pm

IMO I also think legalization of drugs is ridiculous because the cartel will just find another way to make money illegally.

When they legalized alcohol the Mafia didn't disappear they just found another source or way to make money... (shake downs, money laundering, hijacking goods, etc)

These Cartels only care about one thing - MONEY. If they legalize drugs up here and leave no market for the Cartels who knows what they will find to thrive in next; they have no respect for life and they kill indiscriminately, who knows, if they don't have drugs to sell they might go into the body part business, seriously.

Cartels are evil, taking away drugs from them as a source of income wont get rid of them, again, it will just push them to morph into something else, peddling whatever they can to make money. IMO the only way to get rid of them is to really get rid of them, though I don't know what that is other then a full scale war on them.
User avatar
Thalia
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:38 pm

Kelaan wrote:
Fridmarr wrote:Inhaling pot is terrible for you so that will never be an established treatment from the medical profession, save for the terminally ill.

And yet, we lose over 400 thousand people per year to tobacco, which is legal to use, and very dangerous. The CDC calls it "our #1 killer". It's highly addictive, and smoking it has been shown to be extremely toxic. I haven't seen an argument for keeping pot illegal that doesn't also seem to apply equally (or more so) to cigarettes. It impairs your behavior less than pot, at least, but from what little I've read it's much worse for your health.

Similarly, alcohol is both addictive and destructive. It impairs your behavior so much that we have taken legal measures to punish severely anyone who does things like operate heavy machinery (cars) while drunk. It can destroy your liver, over time, when taken in excess (but has good effects in small quantities). On the surface, this seems very similar to pot. There are many people who will never want to use either, and won't be forced to, but just as Prohibition showed us that people will go to great lengths to ensure its availability, so has the "war on drugs" shown us the same w/ other drugs like pot.


And another one comes out of the woodwork... 

First, I'm not sure how you could have taken that quote anymore out of context.  Are you suggesting that doctors do prescribe cigaretts and alcohol for treatment?  Otherwise I don't understand the comparison you are applying to what you quoted. 

Anyhow, cigaretts don't impair you "less", they don't really impair you at all which is one other reason why they don't belong in the discussion. 
 
As for alcohol, let me play devil's advocate and see if that works...You're right, alcohol is way worse than pot.  So what?  Are you suggesting that alcohol was made legal because it fell under some new threshold of destructiveness?  Was there some study done that applied some statistical value to the destructiveness of alcohol?  If so, then whatever that number was, that's the new benchmark for what should make something legal right?  Since pot would have to be less then we should be allowed to legalize pot!  Oh, and lets make illegal the other million things that are far more dangerous than pot... 

Stop comparing alcohol and pot, it's apples and oranges.  You are comparing something that is mostly used in a way that does not impair the user significantly (ie. most consumption of alcohol does not result in the person getting legally drunk) to something whose entire purpose is to make you high, and has no other significant value.  It's primarily a social concern, not a safety issue.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Kelaan » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:18 pm

Fridmarr wrote:First, I'm not sure how you could have taken that quote anymore out of context.  Are you suggesting that doctors do prescribe cigaretts and alcohol for treatment?  Otherwise I don't understand the comparison you are applying to what you quoted.

Sorry, I quoted poorly. I was noting that you were saying that they were harmful (and therefore would not get prescribed), and I was countering with "and yet, cigarettes are legal, and still extremely harmful".

Anyhow, cigaretts don't impair you "less", they don't really impair you at all which is one other reason why they don't belong in the discussion. 
 
As for alcohol, let me play devil's advocate and see if that works...You're right, alcohol is way worse than pot.  So what?  Are you suggesting that alcohol was made legal because it fell under some new threshold of destructiveness?  Was there some study done that applied some statistical value to the destructiveness of alcohol?

You're fighting a straw man. I've noticed that many of the professed arguments against legalizing pot (which I have no desire to use, btw) talk a lot about its harmfulness and its addictiveness. Both of those factors are very prevalent in two widely used substances (alcohol and nicotine), both of which are legal to use in some circumstances, and illegal in others.

I was not at all talking about whether it's prescribed, because that whole argument is talking about the "but it's so dangerous!" argument, which I feel is meaningless when you look at how harmful (legal) cigarettes are.

Stop comparing alcohol and pot, it's apples and oranges. You are comparing something that is mostly used in a way that does not impair the user significantly (ie. most consumption of alcohol does not result in the person getting legally drunk) to something whose entire purpose is to make you high.

My point was that the legality of alcohol use lies in the usage pattern, not the substance itself. If you drink alcohol to the point of extreme impairment, it's legal, as long as you don't operate vehicles, and (in many places) do not do it in public. Many people DO drink it primarily to get plastered (something I don't understand), just as many people use pot to get high. It's legal to brew your own, consume it, share it with friends, and sell it, despite the fact that there are instances where it's not legal to use it, and despite the fact that many people die or are injured each year in drunk driving related accidents. Most people don't abuse it, but enough do.

Many people (most, I imagine) who drink alcohol use it because they like the effect it has with a meal, or as a social lubricant. From what I've heard, many consider pot in the same way, and have no desire to go out on the town while wasted.

Pot has similar lung-danger properties to cigarettes (since you're inhaling burning/burned stuff), and similar inebriation effects (in terms of how the individual behaves, not chemically) as alcohol: you can be high at home, or high while driving, and I certainly don't think the latter should be legal.
User avatar
Kelaan
 
Posts: 4036
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:01 pm

Re: Anonymous vs Zetas Cartel, rest of alphabet put on notic

Postby Fridmarr » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:54 pm

Kelaan wrote:You're fighting a straw man. I've noticed that many of the professed arguments against legalizing pot (which I have no desire to use, btw) talk a lot about its harmfulness and its addictiveness. Both of those factors are very prevalent in two widely used substances (alcohol and nicotine), both of which are legal to use in some circumstances, and illegal in others.

I was not at all talking about whether it's prescribed, because that whole argument is talking about the "but it's so dangerous!" argument, which I feel is meaningless when you look at how harmful (legal) cigarettes are.

A straw man means I'm characterizing your argument incorrectly, which is not true. I'm not saying what other people argue, or that the danger involved with drugs isn't a factor, I'm telling you the danger as compared to X doesn't matter. Danger alone doesn't really matter, there are literally millions of things that are legal and far more dangerous than cigarettes and pot. It's a matter of the benefits versus the danger. It's a much tougher sell with pot than alcohol because the intended use is one of the dangers, getting high.

Kelaan wrote:My point was that the legality of alcohol use lies in the usage pattern, not the substance itself. If you drink alcohol to the point of extreme impairment, it's legal, as long as you don't operate vehicles, and (in many places) do not do it in public. Many people DO drink it primarily to get plastered (something I don't understand), just as many people use pot to get high. It's legal to brew your own, consume it, share it with friends, and sell it, despite the fact that there are instances where it's not legal to use it, and despite the fact that many people die or are injured each year in drunk driving related accidents. Most people don't abuse it, but enough do.
Again this is irrelevent but that pattern isn't unique to alcohol. There are lots of things that are illegal to use in one context and perfectly legal in another. It is illegal to get intoxicated in most places, because that's the start of the negative affect of alcohol. It probably would be in your home, if that was realistically enforceable. The problem with pot is that the only use is to get high.

Kelaan wrote:Many people (most, I imagine) who drink alcohol use it because they like the effect it has with a meal, or as a social lubricant. From what I've heard, many consider pot in the same way, and have no desire to go out on the town while wasted.
That's not correct. Most alcoholic beverages are not consumed for some sort of affect, though it certainly does happen. People don't smoke pot to get a little less than high (and that's MUCH harder to control than with alcohol), pot doesn't really work that way. There are certainly can be different levels of high, but without getting high at all there's not much of a point.

Again though, that's all irrelevant, convincing everyone that pot is less bad for you than something else isn't going to work. You need to convince them that the good of pot outweighs the bad of pot on it's own, without regard for anything else. Alcohol was made legal because it was felt that the good outweighed the bad, it had nothing to do with the level of bad compared to some other bad thing.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9665
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest