It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Bush Declares War on Porn

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Anytime Bush wants to declare war on something, expect that something to proliferate. If he really wanted to stop criminal activity around porn, he'd start with the CIA child traffiking. Check out these Treasury documents on the finders cult, note page 10 "CIA internal matter". Traffiking in children is big business. The Finders cult was set up by John P. Nichols, he went to jail after being nailed in a murder for hire sting with the help of Police Chief Sam Cross. Nichols was responsible for the infamous Alvarez murders, Fred Alverez was attempting to stop illegal activities at Cabazon.
www.blackopradio.com...
Readers might have a bit of difficulty getting to the finders pages because the first pages at this link are so interesting, note the part about the brother of AD2 George Bush attempting to arrange the murder of DEA witness.
Hi George, Ross is next.




posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
See this the main problem with making drugs legal. I would have no problem if drugs only harmed the people who take them but they do not.

Originally posted by spamandham
The vast majority of drug users harm no-one else. Criminalizing drugs does not prevent the cases when someone innocent gets harmed by someone on drugs.


Except people who can't defend themselves and do not know better? Like children...we already see it with smoking tobacco why can't you understand the same would happen with other drugs as well?


Originally posted by spamandham
Enforcement of the laws against harming others would improve if the legal system were not busy fighting a drug war. Law enforcement could concentrate on those who cause problems to others if they were not busy concentrating on the vast majority that do not. Law enforcement is on the brink of collapse due to the drug war.


Maybe in America they are busy with it but over here we are not.

In fact after the Woolf Reforms our legal system has halved the time it takes to get cases through, soon with the specific courts to deal with drugs related crimes and the lower reoffender rate [lowest for drug users in decades] we do not have these problems...slowly they are going in fact we have halved the waiting list in 5 years.


Originally posted by spamandham
Real crimes against people and property are systematically ignored because its harder to get a conviction than it is to get a conviction on drug usage/posession.


I assume the last part is some sort of joke? [I in fact highlighted that passage.]

People use drug abuse as an 'easy way out' of going to prison. They claim they are 'under the influence' and not able to make their own 'judgements'. They do the same with alcohol. One of the things we want removed for the legal field is watering down prison time due to the person being on drugs or drinking alcohol.


Originally posted by Odium
So there is no Black Market for prescription drugs?

Originally posted by spamandham
Of course there is. Prescription drugs are still controlled. People who want to abuse them can't get them legally, and so they resort to getting them illegally. If you could just walk up to a pharmacist and buy whatever you want without a prescription, would those black markets still exist?


Actually many drugs like sleeping tablets you can get over the counter and the 'Daily Express' reported today that in the U.K. we have nearly 500,000 people assumed to be addicted to sleeping tablets... [So they can get them over the counter and the market still does exist.]

In fact many Medicare companies have been abusing their power and giving out drugs that are addictive and in turn making more and more money like an international crack dealer.


Originally posted by spamandham
You recognize the existence of the black markets, and the ease with which people can buy whatever substances they want, yet can't seem to see that this is proof that the drug laws are not accomplishing the stated objectives of keeping drugs off the streets.


Actually the drug market has been decreasing in many Nation's. It seems from recent information [I can source the books if you wish?] that drug crimes go in relation [including drug abuse] with the economic prosparity of a Nation.

Those with a smaller gap between the rich and poor have less drug related crime in the Western World.


Originally posted by spamandham
Here's what the laws do:
- create massive profits for unskilled criminal work (dealing), which seduces the poor into the business rather than into study for legitimate work


Whose fault is this?

You do not think those who fail education, the 'unskilled' will not result to some form of crime? From drugs, to prostitution to illegal firearms trade? List can go on.

In fact, while the 'poor' stay 'poor' due to lack of money [even while in steady employment] it is likely they will turn to crime to survive and the use of drugs to escape the 'prison' which they view their life as.

The result isn't making drugs legal, so more 'poor' people can become addicted it is to remove the 'lower/under' class which exists in our society.


Originally posted by spamandham
- result in mass jailings of otherwise non-dangerous and productive individuals. This is a direct burdon to support them in jail, but also leaves children without parents. A moderate drug using parent is still better than parent at all.


See my point made a few posts ago.

This doesn't happen in every Nation, many of them use community service which lowers the re-offender rate. Do not attempt to justify the removal of drug legality because of a failed legal system. That arguement is childish at best.


Originally posted by spamandham
- create massive profits for criminal organizations drawing more people into the "management" roles as well, which fund drug lords oversees


And?

If you make coc aine legal, these 'Drug Lords' will just be making money legally. They own the land in South America and Asia where it grows. This is again a case of not bothering to attack the route of the problem but instead removing the illegality of the produce through inefficent Government regulations and internal Police work.


Originally posted by spamandham
- turns ordinary people into criminals for harming no-one. Once you lose respect for the law in one regard, you are more likely to disregard it in other regards


Harming no one?

So smoke fumes from weed, heroin, crack do not harm anyone?
Someone going through a bad-trip while on '___' harms no one?

I am sorry but you should know better than that if you have ever been near someone taking drugs or undergoing their side-effects.

Imagine if the Swedish study on weed is correct and people who smoke it [including pasivly] are 25% more likely to get mental illness? Is that worth the risk in your book on people who can be unsuspecting of it?


Originally posted by spamandham
- increases the cost of drugs which increases peripheral crimes related to getting drug money


Actually legal drugs have been going up and up in price as well. The MediCorp companies would charge as much as they could for someone to gain their 'fix' they are a business and are trying to make a profit.


Originally posted by spamandham
- distracts law enforcement from other crimes against people/property


Actually drug related crimes in my area and Police district result in more police on the streets and patrolling. This in turn results in less crime happening.


Originally posted by spamandham
- empowers street gangs which terrorize poor neighborhoods


Yes only the drugs do that...Pimping, Gun-crime, the current 'gang/youth' culture have nothing to do with it whatsoever. Funny thing is, two of the biggest street gangs in London tend not to deal drugs from the recent arrests. It is all firearms crimes, protection and prostitution. Maybe we should make it legal to charge money to protect peoples shops while we are at it?


Originally posted by spamandham
- the high profits create incentiove for police and judicial corruption. Corrupt police are worse than no poilice at all.


And other crimes do not result in rich criminals?

Most drug dealers are not some sort of gangster you see on a movie, in fact they are late-teens and early-twenties normally holding down a primary job and using the drugs to supplement their income. Very few gangs bother with drugs because of the problems with drugs.

You have to import them, store them, move them on through several levels of people [all which can help the Police trace them back to you] and in turn run the risk of people being killed and it being traced back.

There are a lot easier ways to get rich by being a criminal than dealing drugs and they tend to do it the easy way. The only hardline criminals are the ones importing it to the Nation and once it is in, they ship it out of their possession that night and do not do it again for years.

[edit on 27/9/2005 by Odium]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
GEEEE....another war Bush can't win. LOL LOL LOL!!! Fool!!! No work, walmart sent it all to china...can't drive gas costs half a pay check...as for food and other necessities, inflation's on the rise...drugs are dangerous and cost too much...whats left? Drinkin an *frolicking*...but with no money, car or job no woman's gonna wanna *Have pre or post marital relations* you and now bush wants to go after porn?...man the ramparts things gettin outta hand. LOL LOL LOL!!!

Mod Edit: Try to keep it clean Thanks

[edit on 9/27/05 by FredT]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
haha, hey at least you can still buy kegs and assault rifles, great for a night of some ol' texas fun!



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Except people who can't defend themselves and do not know better? Like children...we already see it with smoking tobacco why can't you understand the same would happen with other drugs as well?


I understand that it would happen, but I also understand that it already happens. We are not discussing the merits of drugs, but the merits of drug laws. To have an honest discussion rerquires examining how effective the laws are, not merely repeatedly pointing out that drugs are bad.


Originally posted by Odium
I assume the last part is some sort of joke?


No joke. It's easier to convict of drug crimes than of property crimes because it's easier to gather evidence. For drug crimes, if they posess drugs, or test positive, that's about all you need for a conviction. For other crimes, you have to gather difficult to find evidence.


Originally posted by Odium
People use drug abuse as an 'easy way out' of going to prison. They claim they are 'under the influence' and not able to make their own 'judgements'.


I don't know how that works on your end of the pond, but such an argument doesn't work here. Does it make more sense to criminalize drugs because of this legal problem, or does it make sense to directly address the legal problem? Penalties could even be made more strict for those who commit crimes under the influence.


Originally posted by Odium
Whose fault is this?


Why does it matter who's fault it is? Is the goal to improve the safety of society, or is the goal a moral witchhunt?


Originally posted by Odium
You do not think those who fail education, the 'unskilled' will not result to some form of crime? From drugs, to prostitution to illegal firearms trade? List can go on.


Some will, but the lower the opportunities and incentives, the fewer will enter into it. Not that it matters, but firearms and prostitution are two other areas where decriminalization may make sense.


Originally posted by Odium
In fact, while the 'poor' stay 'poor' due to lack of money [even while in steady employment] it is likely they will turn to crime to survive and the use of drugs to escape the 'prison' which they view their life as.


Assuming that's true, it seems pretty harsh to try to deny them that simple escape. Perhaps drugs should not only be legal, but freely distributed to the poor?


Originally posted by Odium
The result isn't making drugs legal, so more 'poor' people can become addicted it is to remove the 'lower/under' class which exists in our society.


Believe it or not, wealthy people use drugs too.


Originally posted by Odium
That arguement is childish at best.


Sorry, I don't put up with obnoxious zealots.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
No this is good.

Think about it...

War on Drugs = More Drugs on the streets.
War on Terror = More terrorist attacks. [Increase since 2001]
War on Porn = More free porn on the internet?

Thank you G.W.


If I am smelling the right wind then I would be happy.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Except people who can't defend themselves and do not know better? Like children...we already see it with smoking tobacco why can't you understand the same would happen with other drugs as well?


Originally posted by spamandham
I understand that it would happen, but I also understand that it already happens. We are not discussing the merits of drugs, but the merits of drug laws. To have an honest discussion rerquires examining how effective the laws are, not merely repeatedly pointing out that drugs are bad.


But the merits of drugs come into the drug laws. If the drugs didn't harm an external group they would likely be legal however drugs do harm other people than those who take it.

If you make them legal, you in turn harm other people because of certain peoples actions. You yourself admit it already happens. Making drugs easier to get a hold of will only make it worse not better.


Originally posted by Odium
I assume the last part is some sort of joke?

Originally posted by spamandham
No joke. It's easier to convict of drug crimes than of property crimes because it's easier to gather evidence. For drug crimes, if they posess drugs, or test positive, that's about all you need for a conviction. For other crimes, you have to gather difficult to find evidence.


Actually it isn't. You still have to go through a court case and both sides get to give evidence however most people who take drugs no they will spend longer doing community service if they don't own up to it.


Originally posted by Odium
People use drug abuse as an 'easy way out' of going to prison. They claim they are 'under the influence' and not able to make their own 'judgements'.

Originally posted by spamandham
I don't know how that works on your end of the pond, but such an argument doesn't work here. Does it make more sense to criminalize drugs because of this legal problem, or does it make sense to directly address the legal problem? Penalties could even be made more strict for those who commit crimes under the influence.


But the harm you do to the external group will always exist. Sorry but smoke fumes from many drugs harm other people which can't be protected if you make the drug legal.


Originally posted by Odium
Whose fault is this?

Originally posted by spamandham
Why does it matter who's fault it is? Is the goal to improve the safety of society, or is the goal a moral witchhunt?


Improve the safety of society and drugs are not safe. Not even drugs your doctor gives you are overly safe. In fact many drugs should only be taken for a max of 4weeks [nitrazepam for example] but instead doctors prescribe them to people for years.


Originally posted by Odium
You do not think those who fail education, the 'unskilled' will not result to some form of crime? From drugs, to prostitution to illegal firearms trade? List can go on.

Originally posted by spamandham
Some will, but the lower the opportunities and incentives, the fewer will enter into it. Not that it matters, but firearms and prostitution are two other areas where decriminalization may make sense.


Actually if you remove the need for crime they will not enter into it. If they still can't afford to live they will turn to crime. If you make drugs legal they will just turn to another avenue - well in fact, they will likely still grow their own drugs and keep selling it on. The regulation of drugs will be amazingly hard, since a lot of narcotics you can grow yourself and it'll be legal.


Originally posted by Odium
In fact, while the 'poor' stay 'poor' due to lack of money [even while in steady employment] it is likely they will turn to crime to survive and the use of drugs to escape the 'prison' which they view their life as.

Originally posted by spamandham
Assuming that's true, it seems pretty harsh to try to deny them that simple escape. Perhaps drugs should not only be legal, but freely distributed to the poor?


No what is 'harsh' is to push them into the situation where they need to feel like they have to escape. The idea that people need to be drunk or on drugs to enjoy themselves needs to be removed from society because already we are beginning to create a system where they believe they can't enjoy life as it is...and in turn this will result in even more drug abuse especailly if they were legal.


Originally posted by Odium
The result isn't making drugs legal, so more 'poor' people can become addicted it is to remove the 'lower/under' class which exists in our society

Originally posted by spamandham
Believe it or not, wealthy people use drugs too.


The type of drugs tend to be different though.


Originally posted by Odium
That arguement is childish at best.

Originally posted by spamandham
Sorry, I don't put up with obnoxious zealots.


Aww, thank you I do try.

But the point still stands, just because the legal system has yet to be reformed properly doesn't mean we should make the problems legal or in fact we could change and remove many laws as they would only hurt an external force while I enjoy myself.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
No this is good.

Think about it...

War on Drugs = More Drugs on the streets.
War on Terror = More terrorist attacks. [Increase since 2001]
War on Porn = More free porn on the internet?

Thank you G.W.

Originally posted by MankoW
If I am smelling the right wind then I would be happy.


Right wind?

What does that mean? And if you mean 'Right Wing' I'm a Neo-Socialist, so no I'm a centrist.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Why is this thread now all about the war on drugs? Couldn't start a new thread for that discussion?



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by anila
Why is this thread now all about the war on drugs? Couldn't start a new thread for that discussion?


too stoned to bother with all the work of starting a new thread. besides, you know how easily you can get sidetra... hey, anyone want some oreos?



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I could rant and rave about why I think prohibition is at the root of most of our societal problems, but I posted a link to some serious documents related to the subject of the thread and all I'm hearing is diatribe on drugs. Does anyone have the guts to look at the Treasury Department FINDERS documents (scroll down a bit) at this link and present some serious discussion on how trafficking children for porn is sanctioned by some elements of the US government? Who is Bush declaring war on, the competition?
www.blackopradio.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by anila
Does anyone have the guts to look at the Treasury Department FINDERS documents (scroll down a bit) at this link and present some serious discussion on how trafficking children for porn is sanctioned by some elements of the US government? Who is Bush declaring war on, the competition?
www.blackopradio.com...


After about 20 minutes of reading, I gave up. Where does the report say anything about the Finders being sanctioned by elements of the government?



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I'm sorry but this administration is completely out of touch with reality. How about rooting out the corruption in Washington first and then we can work on something that has been around since the beginning of time. Lets get our priorities in order.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
spamandham

look at page 10, the last page of the Treasury documents, it's right there and underlined for easy viewing.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Bush's performance in office is Pornography to those of us who desire responsible government.

I find his sick gyrations an attempt to steal more money from the public.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
It's all part of Haliburtan's plan. The less porn, the more times you need to drive to the local whore house.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by anila
spamandham

look at page 10, the last page of the Treasury documents, it's right there and underlined for easy viewing.


This?

"The individual further advised me of circumstances which indicated that the investigation into activity of the FINDERS had become a CIA internal matter."

How does this show that elements of the government sanction child trafficking for porn?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
No good porn can keep a man down or should but - well, i'd say get rid of it. Its pretty easy to get hold of on the internet. Doesn't matter what anyone says, though, it is easy to get hold of and easily accesible and a lot of that stuff is insanely criminal! Child pornography, man - that stinks. Get rid of it, get rid of all of it.

I'll miss the good adult, legal porn but get rid of it...



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
There is no fair way to legislate taste.

It's an excercise in futility.

Pornography is illegal to various degrees in small portions of America. Anyone who is offended by it is invited to move to one of those frightening backwaters immediately.

There are laws against child porn for good reason, because there is a clear and present victim. That's the problem with trying to legislate regular pornography, it's a completely victimless 'crime' to produce sexually oriented material.

Trying to get rid of all porn would just create criminals where none existed before, which would feed the corrupt, consumptive injustice system and promote further abuse of power by the state. If a behavior works, the animal will adapt it.

Who is elected to draw the line at what is, and what is not pornography? One could reasonably extend that definition as far as one's ability to BS would allow. Pretty soon activists are popping up trying to install fig leaves on museum statues. We've been there before.

In hindsight, we looked ridiculous, and we learned our lesson for a little while.

If this is a religious issue I don't even want to hear about it. To each his own, as a civilization we MUST, for our own sanity and security, leave it at that. Religious sentiment is not a sound basis for legislation in a secular nation, it's divisive and entirely based off arbitrary interpretation. There is no practical language one could use to write a law that banned only the 'real' porn. All you can ever do is criminalize violence. We did that. It's done, been done!

If this is a religious issue...

The MEEK inheret the earth. So, relax, take a break. Leave the working of the universe to those beings, alive or dead, capable of such manipulation. And leave the laws to people who care about more than what YOU and your cult buddies want.

The law is for everyone, and it completely loses its ability to help society in the absence of practical and fair enforcement.

But in truth the character of the war on porn will take shape eventually. There's nothing to it at the moment, not really. All this talk is incredibly premature I think.

But when I hear comments like ban all porn..I can't help but defend the side of sanity. The phrase "been there, done that" doesn't even begin to explain the repetetive nature of censorship/prohibition, culture to culture, nation to nation. It's happened SO many times before, and every time with the same results.

Put the death penalty on anyone looking at it, it won't matter, we've been there, done that too. The porn was concealed underneath vases and behind tapestries to fool authorities. (ancient China I believe)



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Wyrdeone,
You are entirely correct. How ne person defines what is porn does not neccessarily mean that another person will perscieve it the same way. Unfortunately it will not prevent them from regulating it. Look at the "law" that was recently introduced (and finally shot down ) that attempted to stop "sexually suggestive" dance routines by cheerleader teams here in Tx. Someone finally got smart and asked the question as to who's standards would be used? The "dirty old man's", the Preacher, or the Muslim?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join