Post A Follow Up Discussion Page
Posted by an RA Supporter on 6th December 2000
'Confucion', you say : 'If posters cannot be rational and civil, then they should remain silent for the sake of the furthering of knowledge.'
Very high-minded sentiments, but how 'civil' is it to say that I lack intelligence just because I find your posts a bit bizarre, and how 'rational' is it to advocate extremely brutal policies in theory, whilst in practice being so easily upset by someone having a mild dig at you? I'm guessing that you aren't involved in any practical anti-drugs activity at all let alone anything which could be considered as a first step towards the pogrom that you are proposing.
Anyway, for the sake of the 'furthering of knowledge' I'll answer your points. You say that apart from cannabis and ecstasy, 'possesion, misuse or selling of all other substances should be met with the death penalty.' This is a unnecessarily long-winded since it is hard to misuse or sell something without possessing it first. Why not keep it simple - anyone found possessing any other substance should be killed. Or would this make it a bit too obvious how silly and implausible the whole idea is?
Also, surely the 'all other substances' bit needs some qualification, unless you really do mean everything from crack to cafeine? Do you (with the exceptions of ecstasy and cannabis) subscribe to the states definitions of which drugs are permissible? Or do you and the East London Autonomous Zones have your own unique standards? If this is the case then why didn't you include them in your post as the proposal is pretty meaningless without them.
Finally, and most importantly, why should possession be the only consideration? Why not judge the user by the effect they have on their community? If someone has a habit that they can sustain without inflicting misery on those around them then why should they be punished at all, let alone killed?