Somalia should embrace communism

[globetrotter2]

Gurey25, tell us why we need tribalism and the tribe as an organising metaphor when could have institutions including the rule of law.

Tribalism leads to corruption, power abuse and all kinds of ills.

We have seen how it has marginalised people in somalia. We have witnessed how it has been used to murder, rape and maim.

Tell me one reason why tribalism can be a substitute to good governance and I will become a tribalist

[Saraxnow]

@ Saraxnow

The point is not that drugs are harmless, the point is that banning it causes more harm than good. And if you think all harmful things should be proscribed, do you want to ban cars too, for they kill thirty thousand people annually in just America alone. The number of road fatalities makes everything else pale into insignificance. There are more effective ways of limitng harms than by jailing people.

I am aware of the recent change in the public discourse in some Western countries regarding the methods of tackling drug-related crimes. However, comparing cars to drugs like heroin is not a very good idea. Cars are/have become necessity. Drugs are not.

What use do drugs have other than:

1) Altering the mind to an extent where the person is unaware of their surrounding or person and so result in them leading unproductive lives

2) Can lead to family-breakdown, thus producing juvenile-delinquents or children who suffer from neglect and thereby having zero to negative roles to play in their society

3)Draining the user economically where he/she has the urge to obtain it by any means necessary, which can lead to further crimes such as theft,murder etc

4) Mental and psychological problems such as Schizophrenia

there are many problems that arise from deliberate abuse of drugs.

How does removing the ban on drugs make it safer. It many reduce the need to confront criminal gangs by the police and special-unit forces, other than that, I don't see why they should be removed.


I simply see that drug-elated problems in a society is a result of frustrations felt by the vulnerable and less-fortunate sectors of society. For example, in Somaliland qat is used abundantly by many employed, unemployed men and those who lack activities to fill in their lives. Life comes to a stand-still at noon and workers go and buy their qat, enter their little rooms or sheds and waste away precious hours idly chatting and chewing to their fill. So, they waste money when they are mostly poor, drain their national economy, waste their bodily strength that should be translated to work in the country and their most importantly their mental health. Unfortunately, the amount of psychologically -ill individuals in Hargeisa alone is amazing.

[gurey25]

This is because an all powerfull state is not in our interest..
If you remove whats below the state which are the qabiils you will have more individuality, more individuality might seem like more freedom, but you actually intensify the power and influence of the state.

I believe in the natural order, i am against revolutions with no direction.
I believe the basic structure of society is the family, then the local community or in our case extended family the qabiil, in other cultures the village and local region forms this equivalent building block.
I believe in the reduction of the state, and i am not a Libertarian in the western sense i think they are all crackpots and dangerous idiots, i am inspired by Islam , because this is how we have always been.

The ill effects of qabiilism can be reduced, and the positives increased.

I am from somaliland, and my clan is one of the the most qabiilist clans, and this has allowed us to maintain peace and organization while the somali state collapsed.
How because the basic units still worked and were not interfered with by the colonialists and thus held real power and responsibility.

This explains that while we were per capita heavier armed than the USC and other millitas in the south, and that while we has our share of mooryaan , criminals and madmen.,
and while we had 2 very viscous civil wars, they were all brought under control not through the state, but through the authority of the clan elders and customary law.
In fact the absence of a powerful state saved us from more war and destruction.

[Saraxnow]

saxarow i am very familiar with this subject, andi have friends and aquaintancies that work and live in iran and make use of this facility

I have also met and spoken to women engaged in this,( to satisfy my curiosity i assure you, i am fascinated by sociology and the human condition)

No my friend i was not referring to zawaj mutcah , or Sigeh as the Iranians call it..
I was referring to your everyday standing on the street corner, variety as well the call girl and brothel variety.

This has skyrocketed in Iran after the revolution, the chador hasnt cused it, its the hardship and economic conditions..

but the chador and condom facilitates it, makes it easier to do..
A women can have a day job that doesnt pay very well, she can be a good standing wife or daughter providing for her family, but the anonymity of the chador and saftey of the condom
has created an explosion of moonlighters..

i am not lying..

Visit Teheran for a 2 days and you will see.

where before during the time of the shah they were confined to a red light district , today there is no red light district
it is everywhere in greater volume and variety and quality..

Gurey25, are you trying to tell me that the Mullahs' fatawa have nothing to do with the rise in promiscuity in Iran?
Yes of course, the rise has to do with poor conditions that these women live in but that does not mean that we should legalize it as the Mullahs have. The economical welfare of these women should be improved such that there is no need to lower oneself to such a state. It should be not encouraged, it is simply inhumane and unethical.
I also refuse to believe that chador-wearing women are mostly interested in selling their bodies but as you agreed it is not the cause but both I believe poverty and the Mullahs have lead to this. Otherwise, why don't we see the same occurrence in also conservative Saudi Arabia which also have many poverty-ridden sectors.They have their problems with homosexuals, I know apparently due to the extreme separation of the sexes, but why not the same facilitation of promiscuity by their full-length attire (you can commonly cover your face and hands unlike in Iran ), should be easier if what you say is true.

[WiglessBidaar]

I am aware of the recent change in the public discourse in some Western countries regarding the methods of tackling drug-related crimes. However, comparing cars to drugs like heroin is not a very good idea. Cars are/have become necessity. Drugs are not.

You asserted that we should ban all harmful things. I countered that nothing is more harmful than cars which kills far more than all drugs combined. You've now changed tack and say that we should judge a policy on a cost-benefit analysis. I agree. And the cost of maintaining the war on drugs is worse than the cost of legalisation. And cars are not a necessity. Public transport is sufficient to meet all transportational needs. If more people took the bus there would be less traffic and less commute. The only reason for buying a car is vanity. The argument for banning drugs is the argument for banning automobiles.

What use do drugs have other than:

1) Altering the mind to an extent where the person is unaware of their surrounding or person and so result in them leading unproductive lives

People take drugs in ther spare time. Not when they work. Millions of people smoke, drink and chew qat in moderation with no adverse effects on their occupational duties.

2) Can lead to family-breakdown, thus producing juvenile-delinquents or children who suffer from neglect and thereby having zero to negative roles to play in their society

Divorce is the main cause of family breakdowns. Not drugs. Is that a reason for banning marriage?

3)Draining the user economically where he/she has the urge to obtain it by any means necessary, which can lead to further crimes such as theft,murder etc

Drugs are expensive only because they are illegal. Nobody resorts to crime to feed their qat addiction for instance because legality means that commodities are cheaply obtained. It's only when there are criminal penalties attached to selling drugs that prices grow steep. Does anybody committ crime to feed their nictotine addiction? No, because tobacco is not expensive.

4) Mental and psychological problems such as Schizophrenia

Most drugs have no deleterious effects. Only some of the more potent forms of cannabis. This is a reason for regulating the trade to make sure that harmful substances are not mixed in just as you would regulate food production to make sure there was no food poisoning.

How does removing the ban on drugs make it safer. It many reduce the need to confront criminal gangs by the police and special-unit forces, other than that, I don't see why they should be removed.

Legalisation keeps prices down therefore reducing the need for robbery and regulates the content of the substances to ensure its safe for consumption. It also puts an end to street dealing and empties prisons of its non-violent offenders. The net result is less crime, less prison numbers and more revenue for the state. What more do you want my sweet?

[Saraxnow]

Gurey25, tell us why we need tribalism and the tribe as an organising metaphor when could have institutions including the rule of law.

Tribalism leads to corruption, power abuse and all kinds of ills.

We have seen how it has marginalised people in somalia. We have witnessed how it has been used to murder, rape and maim.

Tell me one reason why tribalism can be a substitute to good governance and I will become a tribalist

Excuse me for 'butting in' , but I think we should separate between belonging to a tribe or clan and expressing tribalism. Tribalism is also known as hating/loving others based on their clan/tribe. Obviously there are many negative repercussions to having such a mind-set or character. The yard-stick for hating/loving something or someone should not be based on what their label says but on the meaning or value they hold. Somalis as Muslims should know better that they are all equal and are far from achieving brotherhood,but the disease in the hearts is a disease.

[Saraxnow]

I am aware of the recent change in the public discourse in some Western countries regarding the methods of tackling drug-related crimes. However, comparing cars to drugs like heroin is not a very good idea. Cars are/have become necessity. Drugs are not.

You asserted that we should ban all harmful things. I countered that nothing is more harmful than cars which kills far more than all drugs combined. You've now changed tack and say that we should judge a policy on a cost-benefit analysis. I agree. And the cost of maintaining the war on drugs is worse than the cost of legalisation. And cars are not a necessity. Public transport is sufficient to meet all transportational needs. If more people took the bus there would be less traffic and less commute. The only reason for buying a car is vanity. The argument for banning drugs is the argument for banning automobiles.

What use do drugs have other than:

1) Altering the mind to an extent where the person is unaware of their surrounding or person and so result in them leading unproductive lives

People take drugs in ther spare time. Not when they work. Millions of people smoke, drink and chew qat in moderation with no adverse effects on their occupational duties.

2) Can lead to family-breakdown, thus producing juvenile-delinquents or children who suffer from neglect and thereby having zero to negative roles to play in their society

Divorce is the main cause of family breakdowns. Not drugs. Is that a reason for banning marriage?

3)Draining the user economically where he/she has the urge to obtain it by any means necessary, which can lead to further crimes such as theft,murder etc

Drugs are expensive only because they are illegal. Nobody resorts to crime to feed their qat addiction for instance because legality means that commodities are cheaply obtained. It's only when there are criminal penalties attached to selling drugs that prices grow steep. Does anybody committ crime to feed their nictotine addiction? No, because tobacco is not expensive.

4) Mental and psychological problems such as Schizophrenia

Most drugs have no deleterious effects. Only some of the more potent forms of cannabis. This is a reason for regulating the trade to make sure that harmful substances are not mixed in just as you would regulate food production to make sure there was no food poisoning.

How does removing the ban on drugs make it safer. It many reduce the need to confront criminal gangs by the police and special-unit forces, other than that, I don't see why they should be removed.

Legalisation keeps prices down therefore reducing the need for robbery and regulates the content of the substances to ensure its safe for consumption. It also puts an end to street dealing and empties prisons of its non-violent offenders. The net result is less crime, less prison numbers and more revenue for the state. What more do you want my sweet?

You are taking this a tad bit too serious may I say.

[globetrotter2]

Dear Saraxnow,

Somestimes for the social cohesion and political stability you need to allow harmful substances; tobacco, qaat and alcohol and drugs have historically been banned with dire consequences -

The only thing prohibition accomplishes is a rise in price (you create demand). Look at the case of Mexico and other latin american countries.

Banning something should be the last thing governments do.

The irony of this world is that governments behave in the same way as religions; they want to controll human desire and lust!

If you go the Hague you could smoke a joint, two shots of whiskey, get a clean whore and still come out alive and with good health-

In other countries all these are done underground ; the result been STD

[WiglessBidaar]

You are taking this a tad bit too serious may I say.

How would you like me to take it my sugarplum?

[Saraxnow]

Dear Saraxnow,

Somestimes for the social cohesion and political stability you need to allow harmful substances; tobacco, qaat and alcohol and drugs have historically been banned with dire consequences -

The only thing prohibition accomplishes is a rise in price (you create demand). Look at the case of Mexico and other latin american countries.

Banning something should be the last thing governments do.

The irony of this world is that governments behave in the same way as religions; they want to controll human desire and lust!

If you go the Hague you could smoke a joint, two shots of whiskey, get a clean whore and still come out alive and with good health-

In other countries all these are done underground ; the result been STD

There we go again. I thought I explained that already!

The drug- war in Latin America is a sad story of events. Again, I believe that poverty and breakdown of the social fabric are important factors.


Plus what is with the clean whore? As in no HIV/STDs? Um, that must be rare...

[Saraxnow]

D/P

[Saraxnow]

You are taking this a tad bit too serious may I say.

How would you like me to take it my sugarplum?

What mild drugs do you take, as in mild forms of cannabis. That would explain you referring to me with 'sweetheart' and 'sugarplum'. Not a good sign I say.

[globetrotter2]

Saraxnow,
I respect your stance! But please understand that in my ideal world the less prohibition the better.
Yes, maybe it was a little bit of salting to write clean whore. But my point was that prohibition results in horrible consequences.

Fullfilling lusts and desires are human traits and you cannot ban it 100%

I forgot to address one of your points; the distinction between belonging to a tribe and tribalism; isn't it a question of the hen and the egg?

[Saraxnow]

Saraxnow,
I respect your stance! But please understand that in my ideal world the less prohibition the better.
Yes, maybe it was a little bit of salting to write clean whore. But my point was that prohibition results in horrible consequences.

Fullfilling lusts and desires are human traits and you cannot ban it 100%

I forgot to address one of your points; the distinction between belonging to a tribe and tribalism; isn't it a question of the hen and the egg?

And God forbid that I would want to deny such a right. Limiting to the marital institution is what I ask for, only.

How is a question of the hen and the egg ...Sorry could you explain? As in, did Tribalism come before the Tribe? That would not make sense ( just like wigless's sarcastic comment on banning marriage as a cure to divorce breaking down families)

[globetrotter2]

Yes, tribe and tribalism; which one comes first?

Tribe begets tribalism; tribalism cements tribe as an institution.


In other words, same bs.