This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#197510 by MikeTalbot
Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:34 am
Paperdog

ALL drugs were legal until a freak named Anslinger decided to make a name for himself in 1919. With less than a third of our population there were several million addicts after the War of Northern Aggression (due to horrendous wounds received by huge bullets and balls) but no crime related to that.

Compared to all those opiates who gives a sh*t about weed? It just gives the pigs an excuse to practice kicking our asses.

But I do get your point. Look at gay marriage. I don't care if homosexuals want to get married - but I care a great deal if the govt swine insist that my church has to marry them. They never stop - the govt pigs will do anything, use any pretext to increase their power.

We are so royally phucked I sometimes despair. They / we turn everything good into something that can be used for evil.

Talbot

#197514 by Mike Nobody
Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:49 am
MikeTalbot wrote:
But I do get your point. Look at gay marriage. I don't care if homosexuals want to get married - but I care a great deal if the govt swine insist that my church has to marry them. They never stop - the govt pigs will do anything, use any pretext to increase their power.

We are so royally phucked I sometimes despair. They / we turn everything good into something that can be used for evil.

Talbot


I don't recall anyone advocating to force churches to marry ANYBODY.
Such would violate both freedoms of religion and association.
But, if it were legalized and a church or justice of the peace wanted to there would be no legal standing to prevent it.
As it is, preventing anyone from marrying anyone else of legal age violates equal protections under the law.
Honestly, government should get out of the marriage business altogether.

#197519 by gtZip
Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:18 am
Mike Nobody wrote:
gtZip wrote:Zombie pills already exist. One of which is called Lithium.

Legalized drugs across the board has been done - research Potugal.

Drugs are an escape from pain.

You need morals and upright humans to reduce the pain triggers in society.
For that you need a religion - despite all of the evils that have taken place because of or in the name of religion.

When morality becomes a philosophy, you're f-ucked.

It 'has' become a philosophy - thus, we are f**k.





What? :shock:
Morality has ALWAYS been about philosophy.
Religion poked its nose into it, giving people mythologies and all that other baggage.
What, did you think Socrates was a Christian?


Ok, fine.
When morality becomes "Opinion"

#197520 by gtZip
Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:22 am
P.S.
I never typed the word 'Christian' anywhere. I said 'religion'.
You went with Christian

#197521 by Mike Nobody
Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:27 am
gtZip wrote:P.S.
I never typed the word 'Christian' anywhere. I said 'religion'.
You went with Christian


The only difference between religion and cults is the amount of real estate they own.

#197523 by PaperDog
Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:45 am
VinnyViolin wrote:
PaperDog wrote:This thread is not about "war on drugs" Its not about legislation. Look deeper here.... look down into the gaping hole and see the destruction of a social fiber.

MikeN has it right.... It's the ignorance, which underlies the arguments... that somehow, doing drugs is 'cool'. How cool is it to see your own skin rot and fall off? How desperate of a need to appear 'cool' does one have to be, to inject Eye Drops and dry out one's own vital organs. All this because its the "cool" thing to do? (Actually, the addiction is too deep at that stage to rationalize 'fashion' about it.)

But, that's the very same,mentality which modern arguments for weed, bear. Nobody gives a sh*t if its actually legal or not. Nobody gives a sh*t if it will stop Cartels or not. People want to change the chemistry in their existence, and to avoid scrutiny and criticism, they want you to believe that doing drugs is 'cool'.

America has many Parents, who feed their own kids recreational drugs... They do so because they want their kids to think of them as a "cool" friend. (How utterly tragic for those children.).

Ok...so why the point about "cool"? I raise this because, as Al Pacino in Devil's Advocate would say... "Vanity is my favorite sin" ... AN entire nation has been weigh-layed...becuase of that sin...

If you want to destroy a society (aka a country /government) , one sure-fire way to do it is through the mechanics of vanity. Start by telling the targets how shitty and worthless they are.... Then you offer relief by providing a form of escape from the persecution. (That begins by reinforcing and validating the targets' primal (social) needs...the foremost being "social acceptance".) Then you lock down that market with a binding element (drug addiction) so as to secure the target's dependancy on you...Thus handing over the power to you... Then, when they cant help themselves anymore, you distribute poison to kill them off. Bam! Country destroyed.

Wikipedia wrote:Opium has been known in China since the 7th century and for centuries it was used for medicinal purposes. It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the practice of mixing opium with tobacco for smoking was introduced into China by Europeans. In 1729, its import was 200 chests, and by 1790 it amounted to over 4,000 chests (256 tonnes) annually. In 1858, about twenty years after the first opium war, the annual import rose to 70,000 chests (4,480 tonnes), approximately equivalent to global production of opium for the decade surrounding the year 2000. [1]

The first anti-opium edict was issued in 1729 enacting severe penalties on the sale of opium and the opening of opium-smoking divans. Similar laws were enacted in 1796 and 1800, the importation, however, continued to increase. British merchants brought opium from the British East India Company's factories in Patna and Benares,[2] in the Bengal Presidency of British India, to the coast of China, where they sold for a good profit.

With the drain of silver and the growing number of the people becoming victims of the drug, the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court, who advocated legalization of the trade in order to tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In 1838, the Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangzhou where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed.

In response, the British government sent expeditionary forces from India which ravaged the Chinese coast and dictated the terms of settlement. The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong, unilaterally fixed Chinese tariffs at a low rate, granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners in China which were not offered to Chinese abroad, a most favored nation clause, as well as diplomatic representation. When the court still refused to accept foreign ambassadors and obstructed the trade clauses of the treaties, disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and on the seas led to the Second Opium War and the Treaty of Tientsin.[3]

These treaties, soon followed by similar arrangements with the United States and France, later became known as the Unequal Treaties and the Opium Wars as the start of China's "Century of humiliation".

Bam! Who pulls the trigger?


Not Sure I see a correalation here. Trade is one thing... But the underlying desire to buy and consume the drugs is another. And Finally, the white elephant in the room that nobody talks about until now...The decay of social fabric, resulting from what amounts to bad judgement, due to social pressures.

Escape from pain is common... Kids in America are taught to practice this, explicitly, through our system of marketing and peer pressure. But as we see in Siberia, the dream they bought into is an Epic fail on numerous levels. Humans are so inferior, that they will go out of their way to foster self destruction...What I am saying is that if this falls into the wrong hands of influence, you can wipe out an entire culture.

I submit that we are under attack by people who will use fashion and poison to conquer us. Its that simple, really.

#197529 by VinnyViolin
Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:23 am
PaperDog wrote:
VinnyViolin wrote:
PaperDog wrote:This thread is not about "war on drugs" Its not about legislation. Look deeper here.... look down into the gaping hole and see the destruction of a social fiber.

MikeN has it right.... It's the ignorance, which underlies the arguments... that somehow, doing drugs is 'cool'. How cool is it to see your own skin rot and fall off? How desperate of a need to appear 'cool' does one have to be, to inject Eye Drops and dry out one's own vital organs. All this because its the "cool" thing to do? (Actually, the addiction is too deep at that stage to rationalize 'fashion' about it.)

But, that's the very same,mentality which modern arguments for weed, bear. Nobody gives a sh*t if its actually legal or not. Nobody gives a sh*t if it will stop Cartels or not. People want to change the chemistry in their existence, and to avoid scrutiny and criticism, they want you to believe that doing drugs is 'cool'.

America has many Parents, who feed their own kids recreational drugs... They do so because they want their kids to think of them as a "cool" friend. (How utterly tragic for those children.).

Ok...so why the point about "cool"? I raise this because, as Al Pacino in Devil's Advocate would say... "Vanity is my favorite sin" ... AN entire nation has been weigh-layed...becuase of that sin...

If you want to destroy a society (aka a country /government) , one sure-fire way to do it is through the mechanics of vanity. Start by telling the targets how shitty and worthless they are.... Then you offer relief by providing a form of escape from the persecution. (That begins by reinforcing and validating the targets' primal (social) needs...the foremost being "social acceptance".) Then you lock down that market with a binding element (drug addiction) so as to secure the target's dependancy on you...Thus handing over the power to you... Then, when they cant help themselves anymore, you distribute poison to kill them off. Bam! Country destroyed.

Wikipedia wrote:Opium has been known in China since the 7th century and for centuries it was used for medicinal purposes. It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the practice of mixing opium with tobacco for smoking was introduced into China by Europeans. In 1729, its import was 200 chests, and by 1790 it amounted to over 4,000 chests (256 tonnes) annually. In 1858, about twenty years after the first opium war, the annual import rose to 70,000 chests (4,480 tonnes), approximately equivalent to global production of opium for the decade surrounding the year 2000. [1]

The first anti-opium edict was issued in 1729 enacting severe penalties on the sale of opium and the opening of opium-smoking divans. Similar laws were enacted in 1796 and 1800, the importation, however, continued to increase. British merchants brought opium from the British East India Company's factories in Patna and Benares,[2] in the Bengal Presidency of British India, to the coast of China, where they sold for a good profit.

With the drain of silver and the growing number of the people becoming victims of the drug, the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court, who advocated legalization of the trade in order to tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In 1838, the Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangzhou where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed.

In response, the British government sent expeditionary forces from India which ravaged the Chinese coast and dictated the terms of settlement. The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong, unilaterally fixed Chinese tariffs at a low rate, granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners in China which were not offered to Chinese abroad, a most favored nation clause, as well as diplomatic representation. When the court still refused to accept foreign ambassadors and obstructed the trade clauses of the treaties, disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and on the seas led to the Second Opium War and the Treaty of Tientsin.[3]

These treaties, soon followed by similar arrangements with the United States and France, later became known as the Unequal Treaties and the Opium Wars as the start of China's "Century of humiliation".

Bam! Who pulls the trigger?


Not Sure I see a correalation here. Trade is one thing... But the underlying desire to buy and consume the drugs is another. And Finally, the white elephant in the room that nobody talks about until now...The decay of social fabric, resulting from what amounts to bad judgement, due to social pressures.

Escape from pain is common... Kids in America are taught to practice this, explicitly, through our system of marketing and peer pressure. But as we see in Siberia, the dream they bought into is an Epic fail on numerous levels. Humans are so inferior, that they will go out of their way to foster self destruction...What I am saying is that if this falls into the wrong hands of influence, you can wipe out an entire culture.

I submit that we are under attack by people who will use fashion and poison to conquer us. Its that simple, really.


A connection being maybe that until 1700's, opium was not a problem for China until Europeans demonstrated it's coolness ... and then forced it on the population for profit from exploiting it's addiction. The Chinese government recognized the existential threat that the addiction posed to their society and tried to stop it, resulting in a couple of wars whereby the Europeans "earned" the right to do what it wished with Chinese trade laws and maintain the profitable drug addiction of it's people. Vanity may not have played that big of a factor there, and I'm not really convinced it plays quite as big a role as you seem to be suggesting here connected with only drugs. Though I do agree that it is a factor, as it is so with automobile, liquor, cigarette, condoms, beer, music, ... selling commercial products "Lifestyle" branding in general. With opiates the addiction remains long after the vanity has vanished.

Paperdog wrote:What I am saying is that if this falls into the wrong hands of influence, you can wipe out an entire culture


Yes ... history does seem to have this knack for repeating itself with sometimes only slight variations :D

#197533 by VinnyViolin
Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:41 am
gtZip wrote:
Mike Nobody wrote:
gtZip wrote:Zombie pills already exist. One of which is called Lithium.

Legalized drugs across the board has been done - research Potugal.

Drugs are an escape from pain.

You need morals and upright humans to reduce the pain triggers in society.
For that you need a religion - despite all of the evils that have taken place because of or in the name of religion.

When morality becomes a philosophy, you're f-ucked.

It 'has' become a philosophy - thus, we are f**k.





What? :shock:
Morality has ALWAYS been about philosophy.
Religion poked its nose into it, giving people mythologies and all that other baggage.
What, did you think Socrates was a Christian?


Ok, fine.
When morality becomes "Opinion"


Philosophy Index wrote:The Euthyphro Dilemma is a philosophical problem concenred with a view of morality related to theism.

The Euthyphro Dilemma asks: do the gods love good action because it is good, or is good action good because it is loved by the gods?

The problem comes from Plato’s Euthyphro, and is asked by Socrates to Euthyphro.

Euthyphro’s dilemma is a challenge to the moral absolutist position of divine command theory in meta-ethics. Divine command theory, which is generally held by many monotheistic religions, holds that ethical statements such as “charity is good” obtain their truth values from attributes of God. That is, the statement “charity is good” if and only if God loves charity.

Euthyphro’s dilemma challenges this position by questioning whether this means that what is morally correct is merely an arbitrary choice by God, or whether or not these things have greater, eternal truth. Each position has problems:

The first position is to state that God loves good things because they are good. This claim is generally a denial of divine command theory — it states that there is goodness that is determined independantly of God. The major problem with this view is that it holds that there is something outside of God, over which God has no control — that is, God is not fully omnipotent. It’s also worth pointing out that taking this position denies that God is necessary for morality.

The second position is to assert that what is good is good merely because God says that it is good. If God’s choices are arbitrary, then morality is not objective. This view holds that anything, at any time, could become good or bad. Phrases like “murder is wrong” are contingent on how God feels about any particular action. For instance, if God commands a murder, then it is a just murder. It may be that, tomorrow, God changes the rules. If God’s choices are arbitrary, then they are not rational, and there is no reaon to make assumptions about what God wants. There seems to be no reason to say that it is necessary that one obey God, other than that obedience may bring reward while disobedience may bring punishment.

Under the second position, it would also be misleading to say something like “God is good”. Under divine command theory, that amounts to “God loves God”, which is not what is normally intended by religious claims of that nature.

#197534 by PaperDog
Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:31 am
VinnyViolin wrote:
PaperDog wrote:
VinnyViolin wrote:
PaperDog wrote:This thread is not about "war on drugs" Its not about legislation. Look deeper here.... look down into the gaping hole and see the destruction of a social fiber.

MikeN has it right.... It's the ignorance, which underlies the arguments... that somehow, doing drugs is 'cool'. How cool is it to see your own skin rot and fall off? How desperate of a need to appear 'cool' does one have to be, to inject Eye Drops and dry out one's own vital organs. All this because its the "cool" thing to do? (Actually, the addiction is too deep at that stage to rationalize 'fashion' about it.)

But, that's the very same,mentality which modern arguments for weed, bear. Nobody gives a sh*t if its actually legal or not. Nobody gives a sh*t if it will stop Cartels or not. People want to change the chemistry in their existence, and to avoid scrutiny and criticism, they want you to believe that doing drugs is 'cool'.

America has many Parents, who feed their own kids recreational drugs... They do so because they want their kids to think of them as a "cool" friend. (How utterly tragic for those children.).

Ok...so why the point about "cool"? I raise this because, as Al Pacino in Devil's Advocate would say... "Vanity is my favorite sin" ... AN entire nation has been weigh-layed...becuase of that sin...

If you want to destroy a society (aka a country /government) , one sure-fire way to do it is through the mechanics of vanity. Start by telling the targets how shitty and worthless they are.... Then you offer relief by providing a form of escape from the persecution. (That begins by reinforcing and validating the targets' primal (social) needs...the foremost being "social acceptance".) Then you lock down that market with a binding element (drug addiction) so as to secure the target's dependancy on you...Thus handing over the power to you... Then, when they cant help themselves anymore, you distribute poison to kill them off. Bam! Country destroyed.

Wikipedia wrote:Opium has been known in China since the 7th century and for centuries it was used for medicinal purposes. It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the practice of mixing opium with tobacco for smoking was introduced into China by Europeans. In 1729, its import was 200 chests, and by 1790 it amounted to over 4,000 chests (256 tonnes) annually. In 1858, about twenty years after the first opium war, the annual import rose to 70,000 chests (4,480 tonnes), approximately equivalent to global production of opium for the decade surrounding the year 2000. [1]

The first anti-opium edict was issued in 1729 enacting severe penalties on the sale of opium and the opening of opium-smoking divans. Similar laws were enacted in 1796 and 1800, the importation, however, continued to increase. British merchants brought opium from the British East India Company's factories in Patna and Benares,[2] in the Bengal Presidency of British India, to the coast of China, where they sold for a good profit.

With the drain of silver and the growing number of the people becoming victims of the drug, the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court, who advocated legalization of the trade in order to tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In 1838, the Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangzhou where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed.

In response, the British government sent expeditionary forces from India which ravaged the Chinese coast and dictated the terms of settlement. The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong, unilaterally fixed Chinese tariffs at a low rate, granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners in China which were not offered to Chinese abroad, a most favored nation clause, as well as diplomatic representation. When the court still refused to accept foreign ambassadors and obstructed the trade clauses of the treaties, disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and on the seas led to the Second Opium War and the Treaty of Tientsin.[3]

These treaties, soon followed by similar arrangements with the United States and France, later became known as the Unequal Treaties and the Opium Wars as the start of China's "Century of humiliation".

Bam! Who pulls the trigger?


Not Sure I see a correalation here. Trade is one thing... But the underlying desire to buy and consume the drugs is another. And Finally, the white elephant in the room that nobody talks about until now...The decay of social fabric, resulting from what amounts to bad judgement, due to social pressures.

Escape from pain is common... Kids in America are taught to practice this, explicitly, through our system of marketing and peer pressure. But as we see in Siberia, the dream they bought into is an Epic fail on numerous levels. Humans are so inferior, that they will go out of their way to foster self destruction...What I am saying is that if this falls into the wrong hands of influence, you can wipe out an entire culture.

I submit that we are under attack by people who will use fashion and poison to conquer us. Its that simple, really.


A connection being maybe that until 1700's, opium was not a problem for China until Europeans demonstrated it's coolness ... and then forced it on the population for profit from exploiting it's addiction. The Chinese government recognized the existential threat that the addiction posed to their society and tried to stop it, resulting in a couple of wars whereby the Europeans "earned" the right to do what it wished with Chinese trade laws and maintain the profitable drug addiction of it's people. Vanity may not have played that big of a factor there, and I'm not really convinced it plays quite as big a role as you seem to be suggesting here connected with only drugs. Though I do agree that it is a factor, as it is so with automobile, liquor, cigarette, condoms, beer, music, ... selling commercial products "Lifestyle" branding in general. With opiates the addiction remains long after the vanity has vanished.

Paperdog wrote:What I am saying is that if this falls into the wrong hands of influence, you can wipe out an entire culture


Yes ... history does seem to have this knack for repeating itself with sometimes only slight variations :D


This is what I stated before: All this because its the "cool" thing to do? (Actually, the addiction is too deep at that stage to rationalize 'fashion' about it.)


The British Empire was hell bent on taking over China, just as it had done with India. :
As the habit of smoking opium spread from the idle rich to ninety per cent of all Chinese males under the age of forty in the country's coastal regions, business activity was much reduced, the civil service ground to a halt, and the standard of living fell. The Emperor Dao guang's special anti-opium commissioner Lin Ze-xu (1785-1850), modestly estimated the number of his countrymen addicted to the drug to be 4 million, but a British physician practising in Canton set the figure at 12 million.

Now Why would somebody want to push this particular trade (profits not withstanding) so adamantl;y in a nation that is rich in other resources?:
"If we continue to allow this trade to flourish, in a few dozen years we will find ourselves not only with no soldiers to resist the enemy, but also with no money to equip the army" quoted by Chesneaux et al., p. 55). By the late 1830s, foreign merchant vessels, notably those of Britain and the United States, were landing over 30,000 chests annually. - Lin Ze-xu

Finally, who tokes on their first cigarette (tobacco) , ever, and in between the gagging and coughing , will confess they love it ...Why persist by smoking another one... Answer: Vanity.

#197535 by VinnyViolin
Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:44 am
PaperDog wrote:
VinnyViolin wrote:
PaperDog wrote:
VinnyViolin wrote:
PaperDog wrote:This thread is not about "war on drugs" Its not about legislation. Look deeper here.... look down into the gaping hole and see the destruction of a social fiber.

MikeN has it right.... It's the ignorance, which underlies the arguments... that somehow, doing drugs is 'cool'. How cool is it to see your own skin rot and fall off? How desperate of a need to appear 'cool' does one have to be, to inject Eye Drops and dry out one's own vital organs. All this because its the "cool" thing to do? (Actually, the addiction is too deep at that stage to rationalize 'fashion' about it.)

But, that's the very same,mentality which modern arguments for weed, bear. Nobody gives a sh*t if its actually legal or not. Nobody gives a sh*t if it will stop Cartels or not. People want to change the chemistry in their existence, and to avoid scrutiny and criticism, they want you to believe that doing drugs is 'cool'.

America has many Parents, who feed their own kids recreational drugs... They do so because they want their kids to think of them as a "cool" friend. (How utterly tragic for those children.).

Ok...so why the point about "cool"? I raise this because, as Al Pacino in Devil's Advocate would say... "Vanity is my favorite sin" ... AN entire nation has been weigh-layed...becuase of that sin...

If you want to destroy a society (aka a country /government) , one sure-fire way to do it is through the mechanics of vanity. Start by telling the targets how shitty and worthless they are.... Then you offer relief by providing a form of escape from the persecution. (That begins by reinforcing and validating the targets' primal (social) needs...the foremost being "social acceptance".) Then you lock down that market with a binding element (drug addiction) so as to secure the target's dependancy on you...Thus handing over the power to you... Then, when they cant help themselves anymore, you distribute poison to kill them off. Bam! Country destroyed.

Wikipedia wrote:Opium has been known in China since the 7th century and for centuries it was used for medicinal purposes. It was not until the middle of the 17th century that the practice of mixing opium with tobacco for smoking was introduced into China by Europeans. In 1729, its import was 200 chests, and by 1790 it amounted to over 4,000 chests (256 tonnes) annually. In 1858, about twenty years after the first opium war, the annual import rose to 70,000 chests (4,480 tonnes), approximately equivalent to global production of opium for the decade surrounding the year 2000. [1]

The first anti-opium edict was issued in 1729 enacting severe penalties on the sale of opium and the opening of opium-smoking divans. Similar laws were enacted in 1796 and 1800, the importation, however, continued to increase. British merchants brought opium from the British East India Company's factories in Patna and Benares,[2] in the Bengal Presidency of British India, to the coast of China, where they sold for a good profit.

With the drain of silver and the growing number of the people becoming victims of the drug, the Daoguang Emperor demanded action. Officials at the court, who advocated legalization of the trade in order to tax it were defeated by those who advocated suppression. In 1838, the Emperor sent Lin Zexu to Guangzhou where he quickly arrested Chinese opium dealers and summarily demanded that foreign firms turn over their stocks. When they refused, Lin stopped trade altogether and placed the foreign residents under virtual siege, eventually forcing the merchants to surrender their opium to be destroyed.

In response, the British government sent expeditionary forces from India which ravaged the Chinese coast and dictated the terms of settlement. The Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded territory including Hong Kong, unilaterally fixed Chinese tariffs at a low rate, granted extraterritorial rights to foreigners in China which were not offered to Chinese abroad, a most favored nation clause, as well as diplomatic representation. When the court still refused to accept foreign ambassadors and obstructed the trade clauses of the treaties, disputes over the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and on the seas led to the Second Opium War and the Treaty of Tientsin.[3]

These treaties, soon followed by similar arrangements with the United States and France, later became known as the Unequal Treaties and the Opium Wars as the start of China's "Century of humiliation".

Bam! Who pulls the trigger?


Not Sure I see a correalation here. Trade is one thing... But the underlying desire to buy and consume the drugs is another. And Finally, the white elephant in the room that nobody talks about until now...The decay of social fabric, resulting from what amounts to bad judgement, due to social pressures.

Escape from pain is common... Kids in America are taught to practice this, explicitly, through our system of marketing and peer pressure. But as we see in Siberia, the dream they bought into is an Epic fail on numerous levels. Humans are so inferior, that they will go out of their way to foster self destruction...What I am saying is that if this falls into the wrong hands of influence, you can wipe out an entire culture.

I submit that we are under attack by people who will use fashion and poison to conquer us. Its that simple, really.


A connection being maybe that until 1700's, opium was not a problem for China until Europeans demonstrated it's coolness ... and then forced it on the population for profit from exploiting it's addiction. The Chinese government recognized the existential threat that the addiction posed to their society and tried to stop it, resulting in a couple of wars whereby the Europeans "earned" the right to do what it wished with Chinese trade laws and maintain the profitable drug addiction of it's people. Vanity may not have played that big of a factor there, and I'm not really convinced it plays quite as big a role as you seem to be suggesting here connected with only drugs. Though I do agree that it is a factor, as it is so with automobile, liquor, cigarette, condoms, beer, music, ... selling commercial products "Lifestyle" branding in general. With opiates the addiction remains long after the vanity has vanished.

Paperdog wrote:What I am saying is that if this falls into the wrong hands of influence, you can wipe out an entire culture


Yes ... history does seem to have this knack for repeating itself with sometimes only slight variations :D


This is what I stated before: All this because its the "cool" thing to do? (Actually, the addiction is too deep at that stage to rationalize 'fashion' about it.)


The British Empire was hell bent on taking over China, just as it had done with India. :
As the habit of smoking opium spread from the idle rich to ninety per cent of all Chinese males under the age of forty in the country's coastal regions, business activity was much reduced, the civil service ground to a halt, and the standard of living fell. The Emperor Dao guang's special anti-opium commissioner Lin Ze-xu (1785-1850), modestly estimated the number of his countrymen addicted to the drug to be 4 million, but a British physician practising in Canton set the figure at 12 million.

Now Why would somebody want to push this particular trade (profits not withstanding) so adamantl;y in a nation that is rich in other resources?:
"If we continue to allow this trade to flourish, in a few dozen years we will find ourselves not only with no soldiers to resist the enemy, but also with no money to equip the army" quoted by Chesneaux et al., p. 55). By the late 1830s, foreign merchant vessels, notably those of Britain and the United States, were landing over 30,000 chests annually. - Lin Ze-xu

This is a further refutation of correlation?



Paperdog wrote:Finally, who tokes on their first cigarette (tobacco) , ever, and in between the gagging and coughing , will confess they love it ...Why persist by smoking another one... Answer: Vanity.


Paperdog wrote:What I am saying is that if this falls into the wrong hands of influence, you can wipe out an entire culture

Is that to imply it is currently in the "right" hands of influence? :?

ImageImage

Image
Paperdog wrote:People want to change the chemistry in their existence,


Milton Friedman wrote:How do you define social responsible? What business is it of the corporation to decide what's socially responsible? That isn't their expertise. That isn't what their stockholders ask them to do. So I think they're going out of their range and it certainly is not democratic.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest