Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |  [ show all ]
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Tao]
    #2982188 -

TaoTeChing said:
Quote:
The practical difference is that in a government a) the shopkeeper has a say in the matter


Bullshit. That is an illusion you have fooled yourself into believing. If the man has consistently voted against all new taxes, if his candidates don't win he has absolutely no say in the matter. If the man was convicted of a victimless crime which is a felony, he may not vote - he does not have a say in the matter. Even if his candidate has won, the man he supported may be behind legislation that he is against - the victim's opinion doesn't matter. Even if he has voted directly, as in the case in California, the will of the people is consistently challenged and overturned by the state. I guess if you are accosted by a group of people (outnumbering you) who demand your earnings, and you tell them, "I would prefer that you not take that money" that you have had a say in the matter and everything would be okay? This is after all the same principle, just without the facade of state legitimacy.

Quote:
the laws are subject to all citizens.


Bullshit again. Governments consistently exclude themselves from legislation. Where taxes are concerned, the legislatures consistently vote their members and their minions raises AT THE TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE, without having to increase profit or productivity.

Quote:
Everyone's first 5,000 dollars they make a year are taxed the same amount, everyone's second 5,000 dollars they make a year are taxed the same amount, and so on.


So, equality means being equal slaves to one master? Regardless, this is irrelevant to whether or not one is subject to force or threat of force in order to extract his wealth or earnings.

Quote:
Well since I have seen precisely no evidence of an objective morality


Since this is your non-answer, I can assume the following conclusions can be drawn from your statements: there is no right or wrong, anything can be excused if you take the proper relative position, all humans are chattel to the state, no human life liberty or property is safe from the whims of the day, what is wrong today may be right tomorrow, wrongs of individuals cease to be wrongs when carried out by the state...

Tell me would you approve of the taking of all property from black people if the it was voted on and carried out by the state? Would it be okay, because morals are relative and there is no objective standards by which to judge these actions? Would it be just peachy, if the government issued a decree that said, "All persons of African descent are free to leave, you have 72 hours to freely pack your bags before we take everything in the name of democracy and rule of law"? According to your line of reasoning, I can see that this would be okay... Am I wrong?

In conclusion, you still have not demonstrated that the act of aquiring wealth from an individual by force or threat of force is not theft, only that when done by the government you approve of it and choose to label it differently.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Evolving]
    #2982369 -

Ok guys, i?ll change my opinion.

It?s not capitalism?s fault that things are fucked up. It?s the system?s fault that things are fucked up and the system just happens to be capitalist.

Therefore, the drug war is anti-capitalist but the machine or system that runs this capitalist society thrives on the citizens of this country staying ignorant and mindless. Do I have it right now?





--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Wild Things- Another Colored Ink Drawing (A.C.I.D.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Evolving]
    #2982408 -

Auto-Summary
The post discusses the limitations and issues within representative democracies, arguing that despite the illusion of choice, citizens often have little real influence over laws and policies that affect them. The author contrasts this with a pure democracy, which they believe would be worse. The post also addresses the concept of taxation, asserting that it is theft and that governments often exempt themselves from the laws they create. The author concludes by reiterating their stance on morality, acknowledging that personal values are subjective and cannot be proven objectively, but emphasizing that they would oppose laws they deem unjust, even if they must leave to fight against them. The discussion concludes with a focus on the disagreement between the author and the other party regarding the state's representation of society and the moral objectivity of their value system, as well as a question about the state's method of raising funds for defense and police.

Evolving said:
TaoTeChing said:
Quote:
The practical difference is that in a government a) the shopkeeper has a say in the matter


Bullshit. That is an illusion you have fooled yourself into believing.




I would say the same about your presumption that 'tax is theft'
Quote:
If the man has consistently voted against all new taxes, if his candidates don't win he has absolutely no say in the matter. If the man was convicted of a victimless crime which is a felony, he may not vote - he does not have a say in the matter.


This is unfortunately inevitable in any system of collective action/decision-making. There will always be those that disagree with the decision the society makes.
Quote:
Even if his candidate has won, the man he supported may be behind legislation that he is against - the victim's opinion doesn't matter.


and this is a problem with a representative democracy, but I think the alternative--a pure democracy in the style of the ancient Greeks--would be worse.
Quote:
I guess if you are accosted by a group of people (outnumbering you) who demand your earnings, and you tell them, "I would prefer that you not take that money" that you have had a say in the matter and everything would be okay? This is after all the same principle, just without the facade of state legitimacy.


if the people tell you in advance that "if you want to live and work here, next year around april you'll have to give a portion of your earnings back into the society", then you are given the clear choice, you can live and work on the society's land or you may freely leave. if those are the rules that society has chosen to enact, then so be it.
Quote:
Quote:
the laws are subject to all citizens.


Bullshit again. Governments consistently exclude themselves from legislation. Where taxes are concerned, the legislatures consistently vote their members and their minions raises AT THE TAXPAYERS' EXPENSE, without having to increase profit or productivity.


at which point the taxpayers are perfectly free to vote out those who gave themselves raises and other exclusions--if they think its that big a deal.


Quote:
Quote:
Well since I have seen precisely no evidence of an objective morality


Since this is your non-answer, I can assume the following conclusions can be drawn from your statements: there is no right or wrong, anything can be excused if you take the proper relative position, all humans are chattel to the state, no human life liberty or property is safe from the whims of the day, what is wrong today may be right tomorrow, wrongs of individuals cease to be wrongs when carried out by the state...

Tell me would you approve of the taking of all property from black people if the it was voted on and carried out by the state? Would it be okay, because morals are relative and there is no objective standards by which to judge these actions? Would it be just peachy, if the government issued a decree that said, "All persons of African descent are free to leave, you have 72 hours to freely pack your bags before we take everything in the name of democracy and rule of law"? According to your line of reasoning, I can see that this would be okay... Am I wrong?

In conclusion, you still have not demonstrated that the act of aquiring wealth from an individual by force or threat of force is not theft, only that when done by the government you approve of it and choose to label it differently.



Okay, clearly there has been some confusion of my position on morality. I was not saying that I believe there is nothing morally right and wrong, only that I cannot prove the verity of my values of what is right and wrong. and nor for that matter, can anyone else. All we can do is put forth our personal value system of what we believe is right and wrong and try to come to some sort of compromise. I would activley disapprove of such a law as you suggested, but if it were passed and there was nothing more I could do, then I would have to leave with the blacks or else stay and fight. Sure I would say that the law was wrong, but I could not prove that my morality was inherently correct which is the key difference.




Now, before this gets into a huge argument with examples, counterexamples, spin, counterspin, and rationalizations from each side, I think it would be more productive to pinpoint exactly where it is we disagree. I think they are:

#1) Whether the state is representative of the society (I believe it is and as Churchill said "the least worst form of government" and you have clearly stated time and again that you think it is absolutely not --at the risk of putting words in your mouth)

#2) I believe that while I have a moral value system, it is still subjective and do not believe that I can logically argue why it is objectively true. Again, at the risk of putting words in your mouth, you believe that natural rights are objectively true.

What do you think?

Oh, and out of curiousity, what is your viewpoint on how the state should gather money for defense and police?


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Tao]
    #2982822 -

Quote:
TaoTeChing said:
I don't like silversoul7 because he changed sides on me, so I use ad hominem attacks about him "parroting arguments" because I can't attack the arguments themselves.  Then I cover it up with a facade of arrogant bravado so I can feel superior without having to question my beliefs or give any consideration to the other side.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2983325 -

silversoul7 said:
TaoTeChing said:
I don't like silversoul7 because he changed sides on me,



the fact that you were an extreme liberal and then an extreme conservative just troubled me as to how easily you are led and buy into an extreme philosophy that allows you to feel smarter/superior others (which reminds me of a certain moderator).  you would  make a good cult member :smirk:
Quote:
so I use ad hominem attacks about him "parroting arguments" because I can't attack the arguments themselves.


I don't see where you brought up a point to argue with, it was you who made a pointless, smug and extremely condescending post.
Quote:
  Then I cover it up with a facade of arrogant bravado so I can feel superior without having to question my beliefs or give any consideration to the other side.


um.....actually I believe I am currently having a discussion w/ evolving.  and actually i have changed my thoughts and beliefs significantly since joining this board as well as strengthening some of my beliefs and arguments.  What I didn't do is simply reverse my whole political philosophy to the majority opinion because it was too difficult to come up with my own thoughts and arguments.  you used to take time with posts and careful thought working it out, now most of what you do is one and two line quips about 'taxes stealing money' which, yes, I refer to as 'parroting'.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Tao]
    #2983828 -

TaoTeChing said:
um.....actually I believe I am currently having a discussion w/ evolving.  and actually i have changed my thoughts and beliefs significantly since joining this board as well as strengthening some of my beliefs and arguments.  What I didn't do is simply reverse my whole political philosophy to the  majority opinion because it was too difficult to come up with my own thoughts and arguments.  you used to take time with posts and careful thought working it out, now most of what you do is one and two line quips about 'taxes stealing money' which, yes, I refer to as 'parroting'.


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: d33p]
    #2984084 -

:wtf: If you're going to smugly laugh, please at least be correct.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat...;o=&fpart=1

^^^^^^and that doesn't even factor in the fact that the libertarians like evolving, mushmaster, pinky, lds, ancalagon, ss7 and now i guess jesuschrist post more frequently too.


--------------------
Magash's Grain Tek  + Tub-in-Tub Incubator + Magash's PMP + SBP Tek + Dunking = Practically all a newbie grower needs :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Tao]
    #2984188 -

Believe it or not, my transition was a very slow and gradual one(if you actually paid attention, you might have noticed). I'm also concerned that you would consider me an "extreme right-winger" when I have come out against the Iraq War, for the environment, against Bush(I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not exactly in love with Kerry either), against the actions of Israel, against the way the war on terror is being fought, etc. When I talk to my friends about politics, they see me as left-wing. So I hardly think I qualify as an "extreme right-winger" simply because I am against the initiation of force against peaceful citizens by their own government. And the fact that you think I consider myself superior to others shows you know absolutely nothing about me. Anyway, enough with the ad-hominem attacks. Let's get back on topic, shall we?


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: ]
    #2984579 -

when you consider the net costs over all individuals affected ("society" if you will), using unsafe ships is costlier than using safe ones.

Come again? This premise is false. If the oil spill is on sparsly inhabited coastline then how many "individuals" are affected? If the oil companies had to use safe transportation they would argue this "increases costs" and to "maintain profit" they would have to increase the cost of oil. I presume you accept increasing the price of oil would cost more to "society"?

capitalism requires that victims of accidents (especially those caused by negligence such as we're talking about here) be fully compensated for costs incurred

This premise is false. Capitalism has a history of "fully compensating" victims of accidents? Are you serious? Nothing to do with reality. Read up a few cases of oil spills and how easy it was for people to be "fully compensated".

therefore capitalism actually requires that the full cost of using unsafe ships be shouldered entirely by the oil company using them. if there are uncompensated victims, it is non-capitalistic.

As you are basing this premise on two false premises, it is once again false.

because of 1, 2, and 3, in a capitalist situation, it is therefore more costly for oil companies to use unsafe ships than safer ones.

But remember that 1,2 and 3 were false.

And of course it depends how good your lawyers are. A multi-billion dollar oil company generally has better lawyers and more money to fight legal cases than most.

therefore your statement about capitalism causing oil companies to use unsafe ships because it is cheaper is false.

This must be the best example of a non sequitur I've seen on the board in a long time.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Learyfan]
    #2984601 -

Therefore, the drug war is anti-capitalist but the machine or system that runs this capitalist society thrives on the citizens of this country staying ignorant and mindless. Do I have it right now?

I think you were right all along to be honest Leary  :laugh:

Huxley's "Island" is a good read on this subject:

Island is a book filled with reflections and thoughts of Huxley's lifetime. Huxley's experimenting with drugs, especially mescalin, had convinced him of the transcendent meaning of the universe. Death and suffering, he had seen during his lifetime, loses their sting in Island "by believing that life is to be lived out in awareness of itself and of the light beyond it." (Woodcock 282) The Palanese had built a society on humanism and rationality. Population is under control, overconsumption and mass production is not the key of industry; science is used to better mankind rather than destroy it.  Nobody is richer than anyone else.  The people are compassionate concerned for the betterment of mankind; however it is the evilness of militarism and capitalism that wins out.

In Pala there is no military,  wealth is distributed evenly and there is no Big Business to swallow the Little Business, no problem of over-population, the government is decentralized into local self-governing alliances, and no power rests in the hands of one person (169). The ?Palanese?, as the citizens of Pala are referred to in the novel, do not over-consume, do not have organized religion, and live in rural and live in village communities where mutual aid and living in harmony with nature is the social and political philosophies (170). In the fable of Island, Huxley is for the last time criticizing the society in which he lives by creating a utopian social order antithetical to his contemporary Western Society of technological progress, Industrialism, and Judeo-Christian religion.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Tao]
    #2984681 -

the fact that you were an extreme liberal

I never got the feeling silver was a liberal even in his "liberal" days. My impression was he just floating in the wind, maybe he'd heard a rage against the machine song and thought the left was "cool" for a while. Never thought it was born from any deep thought, personal experience of poverty or genuine empathy for his fellow man.

I don't see where you brought up a point to argue with, it was you who made a pointless, smug and extremely condescending post.

That's just silvers way.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2984701 -

:lol:

I love it when you pretend to know what you're talking about.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2984796 -

It's what he does best.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: silversoul7]
    #2985018 -

I'm not "pretending to know" silver. Just stating the impression you gave me in your so-called "left-wing" days. If you did form your left-wing beliefs from personal experiences then ok. Let's get back on topic.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Xlea321]
    #2985297 -

Come again? This premise is false. If the oil spill is on sparsly inhabited coastline then how many "individuals" are affected?

and what if it isn't? even if it is, the harm to the ecosystem still hurts many human beings indirectly.

the total harm caused to all human beings by the oil spill is very great. that is why we care about oil spills.

oil spills hurt people. in a capitalist system, people must be compensated for damages caused by others. depending on how much negligence factored in as a cause, there can even be charges pressed against the individuals in the company who made the decision allowing the spill to occur (not the legal "person" that is the corporation). what's more, the use of shitty old ships prone to oil spills is terrible for public relations and marketting purposes, so there are costs there as well for the company.

This premise is false. Capitalism has a history of "fully compensating" victims of accidents? Are you serious? Nothing to do with reality. Read up a few cases of oil spills and how easy it was for people to be "fully compensated".

if victims weren't fully compensated, it wasn't capitalism. under capitalism, victims must be compensated.

in capitalism, you cannot just ship petroleum around the world in rusty old ships that are prone to break open and spill their cargo. the practice of doing so would be made more expensive, through the costs of fines and victim's compensation, than replacing the ships with safer ones. that is the bottom line here.

if you want to attack capitalism, attack a situation that is actually allowed to occur under a true capitalist system. no more "12 year old girls", no more banning unions, no more forced labor. let's talk about capitalism. can you do that?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Learyfan]
    #2985442 -

Auto-Summary
The author agrees with Learyfan that drug wars divert attention away from potentially beneficial drugs like psychedelics and focus on drugs that serve the agenda. The CIA's involvement in MKULTRA and the subsequent opening of channels for cocaine and heroin has become the status quo, distracting from the benefits of psychedelics. Governments historically have profited from the drug trade, as seen in the Opium Wars and efforts to shift Afghanistan's economy. The author argues that psychedelics offer significant potential, as evidenced by their legal status in the 1950s. Despite government efforts to suppress them, the movement for psychedelic legalization has grown stronger. The author predicts that legalizing psychedelics will lead to the end of the current system and a new way of being.

I must say (and this will come as no suprise to those of you that think I'm insane :headbang:) that I agree with Learyfan.

It seems to me the drug wars quite cleverly take the focus off drugs which potentially offer the most benefit to mankind (and equally would melt the social machinery of 'the system') and these wars put the focus onto drugs which are pro-agenda.

When the CIA realised MKULTRA was turning and biting them they had to think fast. As well as taking out the leaders of the Love movement, they made sure the channels to (in particular) cocaine, (but also) heroin were opened wide. And this has become the status quo.

The drug wars tactically enforce this status quo and keep the focus squarely off the psychedellics and the Love movement.

Governments are traditionally the biggest purveyors of drugs, and in fact have fought many drug wars in opposition to the current drug war stance. For example the widely known Opium Wars conducted by the British against mainland China. The British government knew that opium took the enemy's spirit from them and this fact has been capitalised on by the CIA in recent times. This fact was brought to light by the Air America scandal of the 60's, and the attempted narcotisation of the Black urban population in those times in response to the Black Panther movement.

Then it was again seen in the efforts of the 70's to change Afganistan's major product from marijouana to opium poppy. And as is the capitalist way (by capitalist I do not mean free trade, I mean the man intent on accumilating capital for the sake of capital and the power it brings)they are now extending their control further, they are gaining capital. For the secret services a handy by-product of the invasion of Afganistan was the aquisition of this source of one of the world's ultimate capitalist products. And as we are seeing, with this capitalist motivation, contrary to the drug war rhetoric, opium production is booming in US territory (Afganistan).

Right from the times of the first exploratory journeys abroad by Westerners, governments took the lead in drug aquisition, distribution and profiteering. It was only at the inflamation of mass consciousness, when application techniques such as hyperdermic syringes were introduced, that the governments began paying lipservice to a kind of moral war on drugs.

This then gave government a good reason to claim the people need them (to fight this war - and all the others they create....) and has become a staple of the election campaign.

The potential that psychedellics offer is evidenced by the period of free-trade in psychedellics. From their arrival in mainstream Western society in the 1950's up until the government induced mass hysteria and the subsquent banning of anything vaguely mind expanding during the second half of the 60's. In between those times we can see what can happen if psychedellics are legal, and particularly if they become fashionable. (As Learyfan says the fact that 'everyone is doing it' pulls the mass of sheeplike consciousness behind the yoke of those with hubris)

The governments did a pretty good job of re-materialising everyone, they stopped believing in the spirit (and the spirit world) and again went back to sleep: dreaming of the latest automobile, entranced by their tv's (and snorting cocaine). Slaves to the system - a few notches or so back down the freedom register. They were once more 'rational' people.

However under the surface the movement never died, it became concentrated, strong, and it grew up. Now it is slowly reinfecting society with insight and vision.

People involved in this Love movement realised they couldn't just blatantly get up and be free, they would be knocked down, they realised they must hide their freedom, but they must treasure this illicit freedom. This freedom of ideas, of vision, of culture, of Love.

Meanwhile the government keeps pointing at the cocaine fields of Colombia and saying - 'Hey look over here!' drawing attention always in this direction, scared shitless of the alternate direction. Best not mention that other direction, best preent Love and sharing in as laughable a way as possible, best make it seem that it's not in human nature. Oh, and best make a phat load of money on the side out of hard drugs. The secret services (and even front end government) is getting big payouts from the cartels to look the other way - and often to be more directly involved.

Hard drugs certainly can't be legalised, for what then of psychedellics? Their legalisation will doubtlessly follow. And what then? The end of the system as we moderns know it. The end of capitalist/communist dichotomy and so forth. A movement forward into a whole new way of being that draws from all the strands of the past and empowers the multitude. This does not bode well for the megolamaniacs, the politicians, the empire builders, the capitalists, the communists, the dictators, etc, etc - in short it doesn't bode well for the status quo.

Best stick at the war :crazy2:

Edited by CJay (08/10/04 12:28 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: CJay]
    #2985558 -

again we have someone confusing capitalism with state corporatism. capitalism is free exchange. it is the absence of force in the market. it is not the marriage of the state with big businesses.

the original question of this thread was "is the drug war anti-capitalist". the answer is yes. some people here seem to have misread the question. the question is not "are psychedelic drugs anti-capitalist?" or "is the psychedelic experience anti-capitalist?". that would be a good discussion for another thread, though there's really no point in trying to save this one.

is a policy which forbids citizens from engaging in productive labor and free exchange anti-capitalist? absolutely.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: ]
    #2986231 -

Yeah, I think I was right when I corrected myself guys. Alex and Cjay make great points. Psychedelic drugs could and would destroy "the system", but that?s not the same as saying the drug war is pro-capitalism. The current system just happens to be capitalist.

Mushmaster, am I right now? I think i?ve got it now.







--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Wild Things- Another Colored Ink Drawing (A.C.I.D.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: Learyfan]
    #2986511 -

Mushmaster, am I right now?

except this part:

The current system just happens to be capitalist.

the system we live under now is far from capitalist.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the drug war anti-capitalist? [Re: ]
    #2986666 -

Ok, well it?s supposed to be capitalist then.






--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month: Wild Things- Another Colored Ink Drawing (A.C.I.D.)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Asa "globalization of drug war" Hutchinson MOoKie 2,857 6 05/13/01 06:18 AM
by MokshaMan
* Anti-Drug War superior court judge becomes Libertarian Party
( 1 2 all )		 40oz 1,463 20 09/10/22 03:30 PM
by alien-hybrid
* Latest Drug War Casualty - Our rights silversoul7 815 1 08/28/03 09:38 PM
by monoamine
* American Terrorism and the Drug War
( 1 2 all )		 pattern 3,480 26 05/07/03 03:43 PM
by Azmodeus
* A conservative on the on the ever growing drug war Divided_Sky 770 4 05/10/04 05:24 PM
by phi1618
* FBI's Criminals of The Drug War!!! Prisoner#1 1,037 2 02/22/04 05:14 PM
by mabus
* anyone here support the drug war?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Anonymous 5,211 52 03/20/03 05:21 PM
by Anonymous
* Protest drug war & paraphernalia laws: Smoke bongs in public
( 1 2 3 all )		 Baby_Hitler 8,150 54 03/05/14 05:36 AM
by Baby_Hitler

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
15,235 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 22 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.